Prevalence of Interproximal Contact Loss Between Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses and Adjacent Teeth and Its impact on Marginal Bone Loss: A Retrospective Study

Saber, Alexander; Chakar, Carole; Mokbel, Nadim; Nohra, Johnny

doi:10.11607/jomi.7926

Cited by 17 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most included articles reported that patients who had a clinically defined open contact complained of food impaction. Similarly, a significant correlation was observed in multiple studies between an open contact and the development of defects in adjacent teeth, higher degrees of inflammation of the peri‐implant sulcus, higher bone loss, and an elevated plaque index 28,34 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…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%

See 2 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: 75%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…Interproximal contact loss has been established as a prosthetic complication associated with dental implants (Koori et al., 2010; Varthis et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2008) and increasing attention has been given to the effect on peri‐implant health (Greenstein et al., 2016). Although marginal bone level (Saber et al., 2020) and peri‐implant inflammation (French et al., 2019) at implant sites with interproximal open contacts have been evaluated in the past, no studies have specifically examined the association of this prosthetic factor with the prevalence of peri‐implant disease. This study identified interproximal open contacts adjacent to dental implant restorations as a significant risk‐indicator associated with peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis using the most recent classification system for the diagnosis of peri‐implant disease (Renvert et al., 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth as a risk‐indicator for peri‐implant disease—A cross‐sectional study

Latimer

Gharpure

Kahng

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between interproximal open contacts and peri‐implant disease. The secondary aim was to assess patient‐reported outcome measures in relation to contact status. Materials and methods A cross‐sectional study was performed on 61 patients with 142 implants adjacent to at least one natural tooth. Patients underwent a clinical examination to assess contact status and width, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), periodontal probing depths (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Radiographic marginal bone level was measured in vertical bitewings taken within one year. A diagnosis was given to each implant. Last, subjects completed a brief questionnaire. Rao‐scott chi‐squared tests and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results Seventy‐seven (54.2%) implants were found to have ≥1 interproximal open contact. Sixty‐five (45.8%) implants had closed contacts only. Implants with interproximal open contacts were significantly associated with peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis (p = .003) and increased prevalence of peri‐implant disease (adjusted PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09–2.27, p = .015). Open contact status was also associated with higher PPD (p = .045), PI scores (p = .036), and GI scores (p = .021). Open contact prevalence was 75.4% on the patient‐level and 54.2% on the implant‐level, involving the mesial surface of the implant restorations 68.5% of the time (p < .001). Conclusion Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth are a risk indicator for peri‐implant disease. Adequate contact between implant restorations and natural teeth may contribute to the health of peri‐implant tissues.

show abstract

“…A third publication approached the PCL issue from yet a different perspective. Saber et al 219 investigated the prevalence of PCL between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth and its impact on marginal bone loss. Their objective was to identify potential risk factors to this clinical problem, citing that sound and stable interproximal contacts generally provide a protective influence on associated periodontal and peri-implant supporting tissues.…”

Section: Implant Removable Prosthodonticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Cagna

Donovan

McKee³

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prevalence of Interproximal Contact Loss Between Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses and Adjacent Teeth and Its impact on Marginal Bone Loss: A Retrospective Study

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

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

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

Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth as a risk‐indicator for peri‐implant disease—A cross‐sectional study

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About