OBJECTIVES: The aim was to analyze the prevalence rate of proximal contact loss (PCL) between implant-fixed prostheses (IFPs) and adjacent teeth and investigate the associated factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred fifty participants were recruited for this prospective study from January 2009 to December 2014. Two hundred thirty-four IFPs supported by 384 implants for the posterior region were followed up until June 2016. The contact tightness had been recorded using aluminum strips of different thicknesses with a regular interval after delivery. Proximal contact was considered as lost if the contact tightness was over 50 μm, and statistical analyses were performed to estimate the prevalence rate of PCL and its influential factors. RESULTS: Among the total 299 proximal contacts of 234 IFPs, 179 were observed as a PCL (59.9%). Bone level and root configuration of the adjacent teeth, the proximal contact position and jaw position of the implant prostheses were statistically significant factors, when analyzed by the cumulative PCL rate using the log-rank test of the Kaplan-Meier method (P < 0.05) According to the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the proximal contact position, bone level of adjacent teeth and jaw position were revealed to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PCL should be considered an implant prosthesis complication to which various associated factors could be related. This study revealed that the lower alveolar bone support level of the adjacent teeth, maxillary position of IFPs and mesial site of IFPs were significantly associated with a higher incidence of PCL.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to analyze the prevalence rate of proximal contact loss (PCL) between implant-fixed prostheses (IFPs) and adjacent teeth and investigate the associated factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred fifty participants were recruited for this prospective study from January 2009 to December 2014. Two hundred thirty-four IFPs supported by 384 implants for the posterior region were followed up until June 2016. The contact tightness had been recorded using aluminum strips of different thicknesses with a regular interval after delivery. Proximal contact was considered as lost if the contact tightness was over 50 μm, and statistical analyses were performed to estimate the prevalence rate of PCL and its influential factors. RESULTS: Among the total 299 proximal contacts of 234 IFPs, 179 were observed as a PCL (59.9%). Bone level and root configuration of the adjacent teeth, the proximal contact position and jaw position of the implant prostheses were statistically significant factors, when analyzed by the cumulative PCL rate using the log-rank test of the Kaplan-Meier method (P < 0.05) According to the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the proximal contact position, bone level of adjacent teeth and jaw position were revealed to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:PCL should be considered an implant prosthesis complication to which various associated factors could be related. This study revealed that the lower alveolar bone support level of the adjacent teeth, maxillary position of IFPs and mesial site of IFPs were significantly associated with a higher incidence of PCL.
Authors: Thomas J W Gasser; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Theodore Eliades; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 5.021