Open Proximal Contact with Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses Compared with Tooth-Supported Fixed Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Oh, Won-Suk; Oh, Joon Sup; Valcanaia, André

doi:10.11607/jomi.8415

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is in accordance with other studies without reference to bruxism. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, the odds ratio of developing open proximal contacts between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent teeth was found to be 2.46 compared to tooth-supported prostheses [29]. Another review of the literature reported open proximal contacts in 34-66% of cases after the insertion of an implant restoration, which was explained by the exertion of force vectors on the teeth while the implant is ankylosed to the bone [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients. Methods: A total of 15 bruxer and 25 non-bruxer patients attended the recall appointment. The bruxer group (mean age of 61.2 ± 13.3 years and follow-up of 58.7 ± 16.8 months) were treated with 331 monolithic zirconia restorations, while the non-bruxer group, with a comparable mean age and follow-up time, were treated with 306 monolithic zirconia restorations. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients’ files. At the recall appointment, all supporting teeth and implants were examined for biological and technical complications, and the restorations were evaluated using modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using survival analysis methods. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. A total of 31 versus 27 biologic and technical complications were recorded in the bruxer and non-bruxer groups, respectively. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding overall complications and survival rate. Regarding the type of complication, a significantly higher rate of veneered porcelain chipping (p = 0.045) was observed in the bruxer group. With regard to biological complications, the only complications that exhibited a borderline, although not significant, difference were three fractured teeth exclusively in the bruxer group (p = 0.051), which were replaced with implant-supported restorations. Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that there were no significant differences in the overall survival and success rates of the monolithic zirconia restorations in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients, although veneered zirconia restorations and single tooth abutments exhibited a higher rate of complications in the bruxer group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the reviews 26 declared that the posterior/anterior regions and gender did not affect the prevalence. However, most reviews 26 28 29 stated high heterogeneity and the need to perform further randomized control trials and blinded observations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After carefully studying the titles/abstracts of the articles, 12 articles met the eligibility criteria. Seven of them 15 16 17 22 23 24 25 were excluded due to the reasons indicated in Table 2 , and a total of five studies were selected eventually, 14 26 27 28 29 which included 73 articles published between 2021 and 2016. Details of the research strategy are in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the reviews 26 declared that the posterior/anterior regions and gender did not affect the prevalence. However, most reviews 26,28,29 stated high heterogeneity and the need to perform further randomized control trials and blinded observations. Further examination of the studies showed that the incidence of ICL in the maxillary areas was similar to that of the mandible.…”

Section: General Sample Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence of Proximal Contact Loss between Implant-Supported Prostheses and Adjacent Natural Teeth: An Umbrella Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact loss between the implant prosthesis and adjacent natural teeth is a clinical complication whose overall prevalence is uncertain. Therefore, the main purpose of this umbrella study was to evaluate the extent of contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Electronic database of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was searched until August 2021 without considering language restrictions and according to Preferred Report Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis guidelines (preferential reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis). Inclusion criteria were systematic/meta-analysis review articles related to contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Inclusion criteria and risk of bias for the selected systematic/meta-analysis review studies were assessed by two or three qualified researchers, and the fourth researcher was used to resolve the ambiguities. From 43 eligible articles, five systematic/meta-analysis review studies were selected for this study. Important information such as the range of contact points, the prevalence, and the location of the contact loss was extracted. Three research studies had a low risk of bias and were considered clinical evidence. Analysis of low-risk studies showed that the superiority of open contact loss was excessive. Prevalence of proximal contact loss was more in mesial contact, especially in the mandibular arch. No significant differences were reported in sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.

show abstract

“…To investigate durability of restored proximal contacts from a subtly different perspective, Oh et al 218 systematically reviewed published reports addressing the odds of developing open proximal contacts (OPCs) between natural teeth and adjacent implant-and tooth-supported fixed prostheses. Additionally, the authors sought to estimate the odds of developing OPCs with the prosthesis as a predictor variable.…”

Section: Implant Removable Prosthodonticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Cagna

Donovan

McKee³

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Proximal Contact with Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses Compared with Tooth-Supported Fixed Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 26 publications

Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study

Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study

Prevalence of Proximal Contact Loss between Implant-Supported Prostheses and Adjacent Natural Teeth: An Umbrella Review

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About