Interproximal contact loss between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 83 restorations with an up to 10-year follow-up

Bompolaki, Despoina; Edmondson, Sara A.; Katancik, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.034

Cited by 18 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No difference was observed between implants that were close to nonvital teeth and implants that were close to vital teeth 35 . Moreover, while one article highlighted that using a clear retainer reduced the risk of PCL, 32 a separate study did not reach the same conclusion 30 . Similarly, two articles reported that the risk of developing PCL was higher when the bone level of the adjacent tooth was close to the apical region, 27,31 while one article reported that this difference was not significant 35 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Figure 3 illustrates the search workflow and the reasons for the exclusion of articles. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria 5,22–35 . A total of 11,699 restorations were evaluated in the final sample (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the 15 included articles, 10 22,24–26,28,30,31,33–35 had a retrospective design and five 5,23,27,29,32 were prospective studies. Seven articles 5,23,25,28–30,32 included patients who had received or were scheduled to receive a single implant restoration, while eight articles 22,24,26,27,31,33–35 also included patients who had been rehabilitated (or were scheduled to be rehabilitated) with implant‐supported FPDs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PCL was observed to be more common the longer the restoration had been in function, 22,28,30 with several articles stating that the peak period of PCL incidence appeared at 2 years, 27 while other articles described an increase in risk after 5 years 24,33 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. 5,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] A total of 11,699 restorations were evaluated in the final sample (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Manicone

Angelis

Rella

et al. 2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. 5,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] A total of 11,699 restorations were evaluated in the final sample (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations