Literature DB >> 30885585

Interproximal contact loss in a retrospective cross-sectional study of 4325 implants: Distribution and incidence and the effect on bone loss and peri-implant soft tissue.

David French1, Mitchel Naito2, Bernie Linke3.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Interproximal contact loss (ICL) is a common finding between implant restorations and teeth, yet few reports have been published on incidence or related complications.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional retrospective study was to measure the ICL of 4325 implants, including single and multiple splinted restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on 4325 implants were extracted from patient records on ICL, time of follow-up, implant location, and sex of the participant for whom implants were placed in a private practice between 1999 and 2016. Periapical radiographs were used to evaluate the crestal bone level (CBL), whereas peri-implant soft tissues were evaluated with the implant mucosal index (IMI). Measurements (ICL, IMI, and CBL) were evaluated with an average follow-up of 4.5 years (range: 0.25 to 21 years). ICL was assessed in relation to the implant location and sex and grouped by the last clinical recall (1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, or 8+ years) to evaluate the effect of time. Data were analyzed by the chi-square test (α=.05).
RESULTS: Overall, 17% of implants had ICL, and this significantly increased over time from 11% at 1 year to 29% at ≥8 years (chi-square: 123.8, P<.001). Mandibular implants had more ICL (20%) than maxillary implants (15%) (chi-square: 17.5, P<.001), whereas no difference was found between molar and premolar sites or male and female participants. There was no significant effect of ICL on CBL over time, but there was an increase in inflammation with higher IMI scores at ICL sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of implant ICL was found to be 17%, and ICL was found to increase over time up to 27% at ≥8 years of follow-up. ICL was more common in posterior and mandibular sites. ICL was shown to increase soft tissue inflammation but was not found to affect implant CBLs.
Copyright © 2018 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30885585     DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  5 in total

1.  Proximal contact alterations between implant-supported restorations and adjacent teeth in the posterior region: A 3-month prospective study.

Authors:  Solange Mehanna; Pascale Habre-Hallage
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2021-05-01

2.  Evaluation of biological changes at the proximal contacts between single-tooth implant-supported prosthesis and the adjacent natural teeth - An in vivo study.

Authors:  Maria Roseme Kandathilparambil; Vizaikumar Vasudha Nelluri; Bhanu Chander Vayadadi; Naveen Kumar Gajjam
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2020-10-08

3.  Proximal contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A qualitative systematic review of prevalence, influencing factors and implications.

Authors:  Jaafar Abduo; Douglas Lau
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-08-01

4.  Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10-year follow-up.

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

5.  A Single-Center Study of a Resin Inlay Dental Implant-Fixed Prosthesis for Closing Proximal Contact Loss in 89 Patients Who Underwent 3-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Qiyue Chen; Yong Shi; Zhaoqiang Zhang; Guangbao Song
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2021-10-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.