Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth is a complication that has been reported in clinical practice. However, the prevalence of the condition is unclear.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the proportion of reported proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth.

      Material and methods

      This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology criteria and was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) platform (CRD42021225138). The electronic search was conducted by using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to September 2020. The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was “Is there a correlation of the proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and the adjacent natural tooth?” A single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the cumulative prevalence of survival and complication rates.

      Results

      This review included 10 studies, half of which presented proximal contact loss rates higher than 50%. In the general analysis, the open proximal contact showed a cumulative proportion of 41% (confidence interval: 30% to 53%; heterogeneity: I2=98%; t2=0.578; P<.01). From the subanalysis, the mesial contact (47%; confidence interval: 32% to 62%; heterogeneity: I2= 96%; t2=0.657; P<.01) and the mandibular arch (41%; confidence interval: 30% to 52%; heterogeneity: I2=92%; t2=0.302; P<.01) were found to have higher prevalence.

      Conclusions

      The prevalence of proximal contact loss was high, occurring more frequently with the mesial contact and in the mandibular arch. Significant differences were not found in relation to sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Brägger U.
        • Lang N.P.
        • Zwahlen M.
        Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs).
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 97-113
        • Blanes R.J.
        • Bernard J.P.
        • Blanes Z.M.
        • Belser U.C.
        A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. II: influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal bone loss.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 707-714
        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Lang N.P.
        Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2008; 35: 72-79
        • Kreissl M.E.
        • Gerds T.
        • Muche R.
        • Heydecke G.
        • Strub J.R.
        Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 720-726
        • Kim Y.
        • Oh T.J.
        • Misch C.E.
        • Wang H.L.
        Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16: 26-35
        • Jo D.W.
        • Kwon M.J.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Kim Y.K.
        • Yi Y.J.
        Evaluation of adjacent tooth displacement in the posterior implant restoration with proximal contact loss by superimposition of digital models.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11: 88-94
        • Wat P.Y.
        • Wong A.T.
        • Leung K.C.
        • Pow E.H.
        Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a clinical report.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 105: 1-4
        • Varthis S.
        • Tarnow D.P.
        • Randi A.
        Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent teeth. prevalence - causes - possible solutions.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 806-810
        • Greenstein G.
        • Carpentieri J.
        • Cavallaro J.
        Open contacts adjacent to dental implant restorations: Etiology, incidence, consequences, and correction.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2016; 147: 28-34
        • Dörfer C.E.
        • von Bethlenfalvy E.R.
        • Staehle H.J.
        • Pioch T.
        Factors influencing proximal dental contact strengths.
        Eur J Oral Sci. 2000; 108: 368-377
        • Herber R.P.
        • Fong J.
        • Lucas S.A.
        • Ho S.P.
        Imaging an adapted dentoalveolar complex.
        Anat Res Int. 2012; 2012: 782571
        • Wolpoff M.H.
        Interstitial wear.
        Am J Phys Anthropol. 1971; 34: 205-227
        • Ten Cate A.R.
        • Deporter D.A.
        • Freeman E.
        The role of fibroblasts in the remodeling of periodontal ligament during physiologic tooth movement.
        Am J Orthod. 1976; 69: 155-168
        • Odman J.
        • Gröndahl K.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Thilander B.
        The effect of osseointegrated implants on the dento-alveolar development. a clinical and radiographic study in growing pigs.
        Eur J Orthod. 1991; 13: 279-286
        • Bernard J.P.
        • Schatz J.P.
        • Christou P.
        • Belser U.
        • Kiliaridis S.
        Long-term vertical changes of the anterior maxillary teeth adjacent to single implants in young and mature adults. a retrospective study.
        J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31: 1024-1028
        • Liu X.
        • Liu J.
        • Zhou J.
        • Tan J.
        Closing open contacts adjacent to an implant-supported restoration.
        J Dent Sci. 2019; 14: 216-218
        • Sfondouris T.
        • Prestipino V.
        Chairside management of an open proximal contact on an implant-supported ceramic crown using direct composite resin.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 1-4
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • PRISMA Group
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6: 1000097
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        • Marcela de Luna Gomes J.
        • Araújo Lemos C.A.
        • Minatel L.
        • Justino de Oliveira Limírio J.P.
        • Dantas de Moraes S.L.
        The influence of crown-to-implant ratio in single crowns on clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020;
        • de Oliveira Limírio J.P.J.
        • Lemos C.A.A.
        • de Luna Gomes J.M.
        • Minatel L.
        • Alves Rezende M.C.R.
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 439-445
        • Wells B.S.
        • O'Connell D.
        • Peterson J.
        • Welch V.
        • Losos M.
        • Tugwell P.
        The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.
        (Available at:)
        http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
        Date: 2019
        Date accessed: October 20, 2020
        • Kim J.Y.
        • Lim Y.J.
        • Heo Y.K.
        Modification of framework design for an implant-retained fixed restoration helps when proximal contact loss occurs.
        J Dent Sci. 2019; 14: 213-215
        • Zeng B.J.
        • Guo Y.
        • Yu R.Y.
        Effect of the vacuum-formed retainer on preventing the proximal contact loss between implant supported crown and adjacent natural teeth.
        Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2018; 50: 553-559
        • Luo Q.
        • Ding Q.
        • Zhang L.
        • Peng D.
        • Xie Q.F.
        The loss of interproximal contact between posterior fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth: A retrospective study.
        Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016; 51: 15-19
        • Ren S.
        • Lin Y.
        • Hu X.
        • Wang Y.
        Changes in proximal contact tightness between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth: A 1-year prospective study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 437-440
        • Saber A.
        • Chakar C.
        • Mokbel N.
        • Nohra J.
        Prevalence of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth and its impact on marginal bone loss: A retrospective study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 35: 625-630
        • Liang C.H.
        • Nien C.Y.
        • Chen Y.L.
        • Hsu K.W.
        The prevalence and associated factors of proximal contact loss between implant restoration and adjacent tooth after function: A retrospective study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020; 22: 351-358
        • French D.
        • Naito M.
        • Linke B.
        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.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 108-114
        • Shi J.Y.
        • Zhu Y.
        • Gu Y.X.
        • Lai H.C.
        Proximal contact alterations between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth in the posterior region: A 1-year preliminary study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 165-168
        • Pang N.S.
        • Suh C.S.
        • Kim K.D.
        • Park W.
        • Jung B.Y.
        Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors: A 7-year prospective study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1501-1508
        • Varthis S.
        • Randi A.
        • Tarnow D.P.
        Prevalence of interproximal open contacts between single-implant restorations and adjacent teeth.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 1089-1092
        • Byun S.J.
        • Heo S.M.
        • Ahn S.G.
        • Chang M.
        Analysis of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and adjacent teeth in relation to influential factors and effects. a cross-sectional study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 709-714
        • Wong A.T.
        • Wat P.Y.
        • Pow E.H.
        • Leung K.C.
        Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A retrospective study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 68-71
        • Koori H.
        • Morimoto K.
        • Tsukiyama Y.
        • Koyano K.
        Statistical analysis of the diachronic loss of interproximal contact between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23: 535-540
        • Wei H.
        • Tomotake Y.
        • Nagao K.
        • Ichikawa T.
        Implant prostheses and adjacent tooth migration: Preliminary retrospective survey using 3-dimensional occlusal analysis.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21: 302-304
        • Oesterle L.J.
        • Cronin Jr., R.J.
        Adult growth, aging, and the single-tooth implant.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 252-260
        • Chang M.
        • Wennström J.L.
        Longitudinal changes in tooth/single-implant relationship and bone topography: An 8-year retrospective analysis.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: 388-394
        • DiPietro G.J.
        • Moergeli J.R.
        Significance of the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle to prosthodontics.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1976; 36: 624-635
        • Oh W.S.
        • Oh J.
        • Valcanaia A.J.
        Open proximal contact with implant-supported fixed prostheses compared with tooth-supported fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 30: 99-108