Risk assessment of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth: A retrospective radiographic study

Yen, Jui-Ying; Kang, Lei; Chou, I-Chiang; Lai, Yue‐Yun; Lee, Shyh Yuan

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.023

Cited by 11 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 32 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 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…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 . Two articles 25,28 found that posterior (molar or premolar sites) restorations had a higher risk of developing PCL than anterior restorations, while one article 34 found the opposite.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

“…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

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

Survival rate of teeth adjacent and nonadjacent to dental implants: A retrospective cohort study

Chen,

Lin,

Kao

et al. 2024

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the risk of tooth loss for teeth adjacent and nonadjacent to dental implants.MethodsA total of 787 patients with an average follow‐up of 57.1 months were examined to define the tooth loss, cumulative survival rate, and odds ratio (OR) for teeth adjacent versus nonadjacent to implants. A multivariate logistic regression was employed to assess the association between dental history and various recorded etiologies of tooth loss among teeth adjacent to implants.ResultsThe incidence of tooth loss for teeth adjacent to implants was 8.1% at the tooth level and 15.1% at the patient level, while 0.7% and 9.5% at the tooth and patientlevel for teeth nonadjacent to implants. The 10‐year cumulative survival rate for teeth adjacent to implants was 89.2%, and the primary etiology of tooth loss was root fracture (45.2%). The risk of tooth loss among teeth adjacent versus nonadjacent to implants was significantly higher (OR 13.15). Among teeth adjacent to implants, root canal‐treated teeth had a significantly higher risk of tooth loss due to root fracture (OR 7.72), a history of existing restoration significantly increased the risk of tooth loss due to caries (OR 3.05), and a history of periodontitis significantly increased the risk of tooth loss due to periodontitis (OR 38.24).ConclusionThe present study demonstrated that after patients received dental implant treatment, teeth adjacent to implants showed a 13.2‐fold higher risk of tooth loss compared to teeth nonadjacent to implants, with the primary etiology being root fracture.

show abstract

Common Failures in Implant Prosthodontics

Bompolaki,

Bidra

2024

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth: A retrospective radiographic study

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 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

Survival rate of teeth adjacent and nonadjacent to dental implants: A retrospective cohort study

Common Failures in Implant Prosthodontics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About