Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant‐supported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors: a 7‐year prospective study

Abstract

PCL should be considered an implant prosthesis complication to which various associated factors could be related. This study revealed that the lower alveolar bone support level of the adjacent teeth, maxillary position of IFPs and mesial site of IFPs were significantly associated with a higher incidence of PCL.

Frequency of infraposition and missing contact points in implant‐supported restorations within natural dentitions over time: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

“…Open PCPs of implant restorations have been associated with increased patient discomfort (Jeong & Chang, 2015;Ryu, 2016), which might be attributed to the increased food impaction between teeth (Jeong & Chang, 2015), reduced fill of the proximal spaces by the papilla (Jeong & Chang, 2015), and periodontal health (Jernberg et al, 1983). Also, similar to IIP, the process of PCP loss seemed to be a continuous procedure, with its prevalence increasing with each follow-up year (Table 5; OR = 1.09) and with the time of half occurrence being reported between 3.0 years (Pang et al, 2017) or 5.5 years postinsertion (Koori, Morimoto, Tsukiyama & Koyano, 2010). …”

“…This has been attributed to mesial drifting of the teeth mesially to the implant restoration mesial components of the occlusal forces (Heij et al, 2006;Koori et al, 2010;Wat, Wong, Leung & Pow, 2011). Finally, marginal bone loss of the adjacent tooth was significantly associated with PCP loss (Pang et al, 2017), which could be explained by an increased mesial dislocation of the tooth under occlusal forces (Wei et al, 2008). All these indicate that the physiological or increased mobility of the natural adjacent teeth in combination with the anterior or lateral force components of mastication might play an important role in PCP loss of the implant-supported reconstruction.…”

Etiology and classification of food impaction around implants and implant‐retained prosthesis

“…The classification has been designed after critically analyzing many randomized clinical trials, observational and cross‐sectional studies assessing the occurrence of food impaction around implants . Studies have shown that the development of open proximal contact along with faulty morphology of the implant prosthesis (subcategory A) is the most common etiological factor that favors food impaction around implants .…”

“…The presence of traumatic occlusion along with supraeruption of teeth adjacent to the ankylosed dental implant also increase the risk of food impaction . Traumatic occlusal forces exaggerate the proximal wear on the tooth surface that indirectly promotes the formation of the open proximal contact.…”

“…The classification also helps to predict the The presence of traumatic occlusion along with supraeruption of teeth adjacent to the ankylosed dental implant also increase the risk of food impaction. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Traumatic occlusal forces exaggerate the proximal wear on the tooth surface that indirectly promotes the formation of the open proximal contact. The proximal wear is more in the individual between 17 and 48 years of age with a significant difference in the arch perimeter between males and females.…”