Proximal Contact Loss in Implant‐Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Prevalence

Abstract

Purpose This is a systematic review and meta‐analysis to estimate the overall prevalence of proximal contact loss (PCL) and determine the distribution and clinical features of PCL. Methods This systematic review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. As this was a systematic review of prevalence, the condition, context, and population framework was followed. The focus question was: What is the prevalence and distribution of PCL in implant‐supported restorations? Two investigators independently examined the literature in four databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) for suitable articles published before November 11, 2020, with no start‐date restriction; an additional search was conducted by hand. A standardized data extraction chart was utilized to extract the relevant information from the selected studies. Results Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 11,699 restorations were evaluated in the final sample. The overall prevalence was 20% at the implant restoration level (among 4984 implants) and 26.6% at the contact point level (among 2603 contact points). The frequency of PCL was higher on the mesial side, both at the implant restoration level (13.8%) and at the contact point level (21.9%), than on the distal side, where the prevalence was 3.3% and 11.0%, respectively. The event rate in the maxilla and in the mandible at the contact level was 21.4% and 21.9%, respectively. Conclusions PCL is a frequent complication. Approximately 29% of contact points develop this condition, which may cause food impaction and damage to the interproximal tissues.

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

“…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.…”

“…Generally, we analyzed five review studies that consisted of 73 articles (43 retrospective, 16 prospective, and 14 RTC articles) and 29,765 (501 to 12370) proximal contact points in total. All reviews 14 26 27 28 29 reported a high prevalence of ICL; Oh et al 28 showed that the ratio of ICL in the implants was 2.5 times higher than that of the teeth and was increased in proximal space in follow-up periods; Manicone et al 27 showed that ICL is a common problem occurring in 29% of contact points associated with an increase in inflammation of adjacent teeth. One of the reviews 26 declared that the posterior/anterior regions and gender did not affect the prevalence.…”

“…Open contact (OC) is annoying to the patient, causes more inflammation in nearby tissues, and can increase the risk of new defects. 27 The prevalence of proximal OC varied between studies. 9 15 33 36 37 Various studies have reported the first OC between 1 and 123 months after the restoration.…”

“…Based on the number of correct responses, the level of bias in the study was reported as high, medium, or low (►Table 1). In this study, the risk of bias was either moderate (including one systematic/metaanalysis review 27 ) or low (including three systematic/metaanalysis reviews 26,28,29 ). Systematic/meta-analysis review studies with a low risk of bias were considered as clinical evidence.…”

The Application of Angulated Screw-Channels in Metal-Free, Implant-Supported Restorations: A Retrospective Survival Analysis

“…On the contrary, screw-retained restorations, initially only adopted for full-arch restorations [12], can be much more easily retrieved if a complication develops [13,14]. They are also quite unlikely to be subject to biological complications, provided that a good fit is obtained.…”