Modification of framework design for an implant-retained fixed restoration helps when proximal contact loss occurs

Kim, Jong-Yub; Lim, Young‐Jun; Heo, Young-Ku

doi:10.1016/j.jds.2019.03.003

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact loss between the implant prosthesis and adjacent natural teeth is a clinical complication whose overall prevalence is uncertain. Therefore, the main purpose of this umbrella study was to evaluate the extent of contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Electronic database of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was searched until August 2021 without considering language restrictions and according to Preferred Report Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis guidelines (preferential reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis). Inclusion criteria were systematic/meta-analysis review articles related to contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Inclusion criteria and risk of bias for the selected systematic/meta-analysis review studies were assessed by two or three qualified researchers, and the fourth researcher was used to resolve the ambiguities. From 43 eligible articles, five systematic/meta-analysis review studies were selected for this study. Important information such as the range of contact points, the prevalence, and the location of the contact loss was extracted. Three research studies had a low risk of bias and were considered clinical evidence. Analysis of low-risk studies showed that the superiority of open contact loss was excessive. Prevalence of proximal contact loss was more in mesial contact, especially in the mandibular arch. No significant differences were reported in sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical Effects of Interproximal Contact Loss between Teeth and Implant-Supported Prostheses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nery,

Manarte-Monteiro,

Aragão

et al. 2024

Prosthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental rehabilitation with implants is a clinical reality in clinical practice. The Interproximal Contact Loss (ICL) between implant-supported prostheses adjacent to natural teeth is a relatively common occurrence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the possible clinical effects of the periodontium regarding the ICL between teeth and implanted-supported prostheses. We also identified the main ICL assessment tools described in the literature. This study was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42023446235), was based on the PICO strategy, and followed the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was carried out in the PubMed, B-on, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases without setting a time limit for publications. Only systematic reviews and comparative clinical trials were included and analyzed. Nineteen publications were eligible for meta-analysis, with thirteen retrospective and six prospective clinical trials. A total of 2047 patients and 7319 prostheses in function were evaluated, and ICL was found in 51% with a confidence interval of 0.40 to 0.61. As ICL assessment tools, dental floss was used in 65%, matrices were used in 30%, and X-ray images were used in 5% of cases. The clinical follow-up ranged from 1 to 21 years, with 50% between 1 and 3 years, 25% between 3 and 10 years, and 25% between 10 and 21 years. ICL was found to occur more frequently in the mandible. No statistically significant difference existed between the anterior (55%) and posterior (47%) oral regions. On the mesial surface, ICL ranged from 13% to 81.4%, possibly due to the different follow-up periods and the diversity of methods used in the assessment. No differences were found for ICL between single or multiple implanted-supported prostheses. Food impaction was the most common effect of ICL and was more prevalent on the implant-supported prosthesis’s mesial surface in the mandible’s posterior region. There was evidence of peri-implant mucositis but without progression to peri-implantitis, and the form of retention or the number of elements was not relevant.

show abstract

Modification of framework design for an implant-retained fixed restoration helps when proximal contact loss occurs

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

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

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

Clinical Effects of Interproximal Contact Loss between Teeth and Implant-Supported Prostheses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About