Post-insertion Posterior Single-implant Occlusion Changes at Different Intervals: A T-Scan Computerized Occlusal Analysis

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the postinsertion posterior single-implant occlusion changes at 3-and 6-month intervals using T-Scan computerized occlusal analysis. Materials and methods:A total of 21 patients received single implant, opposed by natural dentition, in posterior regions of the maxilla or mandible (13 premolar, 8 molar) and were finally restored with cemented-retained metal-ceramic crowns. The occlusal contacts were equilibrated according to the implantprotective occlusion concept to develop light contact with heavy occlusion and no contact with light occlusion in maximum intercuspation. The percentage of force applied to the implant crowns (POFI) and contralateral teeth (POFT) was evaluated using T-Scan computerized occlusal analysis at prosthesis insertion, 3-and 6-month follow-up appointments. The data were statistically analyzed using Friedman test and Wilcoxon post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results:The POFI values at the 6-and 3-month follow-up appointments were significantly higher than those at prostheses insertion (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005 respectively). In addition, there were significant differences between the POFI at 3-and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.020). However, the POFT values at 3-and 6-month follow-up appointments were significantly lower than those at baseline (p < 0.001). Conclusion:The intensity of occlusal contacts of implantsupported prostheses opposed by natural dentition gradually Clinical significance: A periodic occlusal adjustment of implant-supported prostheses is necessary to prevent potential overloading from the movement of opposing natural dentition. Post-insertion Posterior Single-implant Occlusion Changes at Different Intervals: A T-Scan

Digital occlusal analysis of pre and post single posterior implant restoration delivery: A pilot study

“…The average bite force between contralateral teeth and implant crowns decreased from 3.48 initially to 1.50 times and from 4.54 to 3.09 times for distal teeth and implant crowns over time (Table 7, Fig 8), respectively. The findings of this study were consistent with related research [9,16,29,30], which presented bite force of prosthesis increased from 4.72% to 9.64% at 3 months [29] whereas there was no significant difference in bite force of prosthesis from 3 months (9.87 ± 6.79%) to 6 months (10.59 ± 6.59%) [9]. The continuous eruption of the opposing teeth and the occlusal wear of the remaining natural teeth [31] may partly explain the variation in the occlusion of implant prostheses.…”

“…The sample size was calculated according to the experimental research method, and the analysis index was “the change in the bite force distribution with a single posterior implant restoration pre- and post-insertion,” assuming that bite force was the data to be measured [ 16 , 27 ]; an average increase of 2 units of bite force after insertion was considered to be significant if the standard deviation of the difference in the bite force for the subjects in the study was σ = 3 units, α was 0.05 on both sides, and the test efficiency 1-β was 0.90. Then, the standard deviation of the sample bite force s = (σ =) 3 units, δ = 2 units of bite force change, α = 0.05, and = 1.96, β = 0.10, Z β = 1.282 were calculated to obtain 23.65, that is, at least 24 subjects needed to conduct pre- and post-experimental comparisons.…”

“…The delivery of implant prostheses has a positive effect on the maintenance of the functional tooth unit (FTU), which is defined as two opposing teeth occluding each other [ 14 , 15 ]. As the smallest possible increment of FTUs, due to the“light contact”characteristic, coupled with the patient’s personal anatomy as well as the complexity of the occlusion, the effect of a single posterior dental implant-supported restoration loading on the distribution of occlusal force remains questionable, and the stability of this new occlusion constructed by implant prosthesis insertion is still in doubt [ 16 ]. Current studies are either in vitro or animal experiments, or mainly clinical retrospective studies and case reports [ 17 ], objective and quantitative clinical trials and evidences support are lacking [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Analyzing the occlusion variation of single posterior implant–supported fixed prostheses by using the T-scan system: A prospective 3-year follow-up study

“…A previous study also reported that the implant-opposing natural dentition continued to erupt so that contact with the implant-supported prosthesis was established. 26 Occlusal wear of the natural teeth may facilitate these changes to some extent, especially before occlusal contacts were established in implant prostheses. The wear of natural teeth, which varies from person to person, is related to personal eating habits and food categories.…”

“…Madani et al 26 evaluated the postinsertion posterior single-implant occlusion changes at 3-and 6-month intervals by using the T-Scan computerized occlusal analysis system. They reported that the relative forces at the 6-and 3-month follow-up appointments were significantly higher than those at prostheses insertion.…”