A Single-Center Study of a Resin Inlay Dental Implant-Fixed Prosthesis for Closing Proximal Contact Loss in 89 Patients Who Underwent 3-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

Background Proximal contact loss (PCL) is very common between implant-fixed prostheses (IFPs) and adjacent teeth and leads to a high incidence of food impaction. Our aim was to determine if the mesio-distal adjustable (MDA) crown prostheses introduced in this study could easily establish new contacts intraorally without the intervention of prostheses retrieval. Material/Methods The MDA crown requires casting in the inlay framework at the proximal contact area. If PCL occurred, the resin in the inlay framework could be easily removed and refilled chairside. This single-center prospective study aimed to investigate the use of a resin inlay dental implant-fixed prosthesis for the closing proximal contact loss in 93 patients who were recruited from April 2017 to December 2017. Four patients dropped out during the 3-year follow-up; therefore, 89 patients were included. The effect of this technique was assessed by the implant mucosal status and follow-up investigations of food impaction. Results PCL occurred in 29.21% (26 prostheses) of the IFPs. The PCL rate at the mesial contact surfaces (n=24, 26.97%) was significantly higher than that at the distal contact surfaces (n=5, 8.33%) ( P <0.01); however, the incidence of PCL was greater at adjacent teeth with significant bone resorption ( P =0.00). After readjusting the resin inlay and closing the clearance, implant mucosal status and food impaction were significantly reduced ( P <0.01). Conclusions The findings of this study showed that use of the MDA crown for closing PCL was time-saving and effective with satisfactory results at 3-year follow-up.

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

“…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.…”

“…The characteristics of mesial and distal open contact are summarized in mm/µm in Table 4 and in percentages in Table 5. In Table 5, five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50%, 4,9,14,19,21 and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. 13,22,28 Regarding the studies that analyzed the mesial versus distal proximal contacts, most studies presented greater ICL at the mesial surface.…”

“…All studies evaluated the interproximal contact on posterior regions (molar, premolar). 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.…”

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

“…Of the 19 included articles, one article was added to this study by manual search. 7 Of included studies (7, 16 -38) 14 had a retrospective design, (17- 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 - 28 , 30 , 32 , 37 ,38) 7 studies (7, 20 , 23 , 29 , 33 , 35 ,36) were prospective, and 3 were cross-sectional studies. (16, 31 ,34) The details and data extracted from each study are summarized in the supplementary file.…”

“…Four studies 23 , 24 , 30 , 33 were eligible for evaluating PCL in terms of age category. According to the results, the frequency of contact loss in patients <50 years of age was 25.7% (95% CI: 10.6‒50.2%, Q-value=88.463, df=3, P<0.001, I 2 =96.60); for individuals >50 years of age, it was 32.1% (95% CI: 13.1‒59.7%, Q-value=158.196, df=3, P<0.001, I 2 =98.10), and overall, 28.6%, (95% CI: 15.5‒46.6%, Q-value=246.659, df=7, P<0.001, I 2 =97.16) ( Figure 13a ).…”