Proximal contact alterations between implant-supported restorations and adjacent teeth in the posterior region: A 3-month prospective study

Mehanna, Solange; Habre-Hallage, Pascale

doi:10.4317/jced.57802

Cited by 6 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, according to the systematic review, a high percentage is expected in the mandible 68,79,82,84,85,87 because the lower teeth often present with mesial tipping 85 . A 2.5‐fold increased risk of interproximal contact loss when implants are splinted in fixed partial dentures rather than with single crowns has been mentioned, 44 a finding also verified by other studies 83,87 . Despite objections, 82 bone support of the adjacent teeth plays an important role 88 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…85 A 2.5-fold increased risk of interproximal contact loss when implants are splinted in fixed partial dentures rather than with single crowns has been mentioned, 44 a finding also verified by other studies. 83,87 Despite objections, 82 bone support of the adjacent teeth plays an important role. 88 Increased marginal bone loss in cases of interproximal contact loss has been reported.…”

Section: Interproximal Contact Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of maxillofacial growth on implants placed in adults: A narrative review

Papalexopoulos

Samartzi

Tsirogiannis

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine the effect of lifetime maxillofacial changes on dental implants placed in adults, analyze the clinical implications of these changes, identify prognostic factors, and offer possible solutions. Overview The relationship between implant placement and maxillofacial changes, occurring during not only the active growth period but also the entire span of adulthood, has not been extensively examined. Vertical differences between implants and adjacent teeth due to the ankylotic behavior of the former might be observed at any age and endanger restoration biologically, functionally, and esthetically. Regarding interproximal contacts, firm contact loss may occur within a few months after restoration, resulting in food impaction. Many prognostic factors have been reported, but most do not exhibit a statistically significant association with implant infraocclusion and interproximal contact loss. Incorporation of alternative solutions, accurate treatment planning, strict recall protocols, and retrievability of implant‐supported restorations can facilitate efficient management of complications. Conclusion Maxillomandibular changes throughout adulthood may lead to complications such as implant infraocclusion and interproximal contact loss. Rehabilitation of edentulism should be characterized by well‐designed and flexible treatment plans to resolve long‐term complications efficiently. Further long‐term clinical studies are needed to identify other risk factors. Clinical Significance Treatment plans for implant therapy should be reconsidered for adults. Careful patient monitoring and early intervention are essential for securing treatment outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Interproximal Contact Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of maxillofacial growth on implants placed in adults: A narrative review

Papalexopoulos

Samartzi

Tsirogiannis

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Five of the included studies were retrospective, 1,8,19,21,28 and 7 were prospective studies. 3,4,9,11,12,15,22 The studies had a total of 3233 points of proximal contact (range, 26 to 1104 points of contact per study). All studies analyzed age, gender, implant location, number of implant restorations or interproximal contacts, TA B L E 6 Results of appraisal of risk of bias in studies based on Newcastle-Ottawa scale.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies analyzed the interproximal contact at 1-year follow-up, 3,4,12,13 nine studies at 2-years or more, 1,8,9,11,14,19,20,22,28 and one study at 3 months post insertion. 15 The evaluation methods for assessing interproximal contact included a custom-made contact pressure system, dental floss, digital force gauge, thick metal strip, number of 38 µm-thick Tofflemire matrix bands, or 12 µm-thick shim stock occlusion foil and 50 µm-thick metal shim strip.…”

Section: F I G U R Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Interproximal contact loss between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Sheba,

Floriani,

Nimmo

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age, gender, follow‐up time, and arch location.MethodsThis study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was “What is the prevalence of the interproximal contact loss between implant restoration and adjacent teeth?” The search strategy used four main electronic databases and an additional manual search was performed between June and February 2023. Clinical studies that evaluated the prevalence of interproximal open contact between implant restorations and adjacent teeth were included. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. In addition, a single‐arm meta‐analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the percentage of mesial versus distal open contact and total interproximal contact loss between implant restoration and adjacent teeth.ResultsFifteen studies published between 2014 and 2023 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented ICL rates higher than 20%. All studies evaluated ICL on posterior regions (molar, premolar area). Five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50% and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. One study assessed the interproximal contact at three months post‐restoration insertion, 4 studies assessed the interproximal contact at one‐year follow‐up and 9 studies evaluated the interproximal contact over two years of follow‐up. Mesial and distal ICL rates were 44.2% (95% CI: 30.6% to 58.6%) and 27.5% (CI95%: 10.5% to 55.0%), respectively. The heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 (CI95%) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%).ConclusionBased on the results of the included studies, the prevalence of ICL was high, occurring more frequently at the mesial contact. There were no significant differences in relation to age, gender, and arch location.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

“…Subsequently, a significant correlation was demonstrated between smoking and periodontal disease. 49 In this review, only three studies 25 , 32 , 36 evaluated the effect of smoking on proximal contact loss, reporting no significant association between them. Also, patients with systemic diseases like diabetes did not exhibit any significant differences in PCL (P=0.389).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ghasemi

Oveisi-Oskouei

Torab

et al. 2022

J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of proximal contact loss and its associated factors. Methods. A bibliographic search was conducted in June 2021 with no limitation in the article date or language and updated in January 2022 by hand searching. There was no time limit on the search to retrieve all studies. The search included randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments, and cross-sectional or cohort studies were included in the absence of these studies. Two authors screened the title and abstract. After evaluating the full texts of selected articles, irrelevant studies and or non-English papers that were impossible to translate were excluded. Disagreements between the reviewers’ selection process were resolved by debate on the eligibility of studies. Standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute for different types of studies were used to assess the studies’ quality. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (Version 2.2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used for data analysis. Results. The proximal contact loss (PCL) frequency was %29. According to the results, the frequencies of PCL for the distal and mesial aspects were %7 and %21, respectively. The meta-analysis results showed that the contact loss events on the mesial aspect were statistically higher than on the distal aspect (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences between other associated factors such as the mandibular or maxillary arch, retention type, opposing dentition, implant type, molar or non-molar, parafunction behaviors, and vitality of adjacent teeth. There was a significant association between bone loss and PCL, and in individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher (OR: %95[ 2.43 CI: 4.03‒1.47], P=0.0006). The PCL in the anterior area was lower than in the posterior area (P=0.004). Although the frequency of contact loss in females was higher than in males, this rate was not statistically significant. Conclusion. The PCL on the mesial aspect and the posterior area was high. In individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher than in others.

show abstract

Proximal contact alterations between implant-supported restorations and adjacent teeth in the posterior region: A 3-month prospective study

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Impact of maxillofacial growth on implants placed in adults: A narrative review

Impact of maxillofacial growth on implants placed in adults: A narrative review

Interproximal contact loss between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About