Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(04): 742-748
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745771
Review Article

Prevalence of Proximal Contact Loss between Implant-Supported Prostheses and Adjacent Natural Teeth: An Umbrella Review

Amirhossein Fathi
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Ramin Mosharraf
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Behnaz Ebadian
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Implants Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Mehdi Javan
3   Private Practice, Tehran, Iran
,
Sabire Isler
4   Department of Prosthodontics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Sara Nasrollahi Dezaki
5   Dental Students' Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Contact loss between the implant prosthesis and adjacent natural teeth is a clinical complication whose overall prevalence is uncertain. Therefore, the main purpose of this umbrella study was to evaluate the extent of contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Electronic database of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was searched until August 2021 without considering language restrictions and according to Preferred Report Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis guidelines (preferential reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis). Inclusion criteria were systematic/meta-analysis review articles related to contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth. Inclusion criteria and risk of bias for the selected systematic/meta-analysis review studies were assessed by two or three qualified researchers, and the fourth researcher was used to resolve the ambiguities. From 43 eligible articles, five systematic/meta-analysis review studies were selected for this study. Important information such as the range of contact points, the prevalence, and the location of the contact loss was extracted. Three research studies had a low risk of bias and were considered clinical evidence. Analysis of low-risk studies showed that the superiority of open contact loss was excessive. Prevalence of proximal contact loss was more in mesial contact, especially in the mandibular arch. No significant differences were reported in sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.

Keywords

proximal contact loss - implant-supported prostheses - adjacent natural teeth


Publication History

Article published online:
10 June 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, 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 (Suppl. 03) 97-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, Belser UC. 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 (06) 707-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pjetursson BE, Lang NP. Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35 (Suppl. 01) 72-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. 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 (06) 720-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16 (01) 26-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Baldini N. et al. Patient-centered rehabilitation of single, partial, and complete edentulism with cemented- or screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis: the First Osstem Advanced Dental Implant Research and Education Center Consensus Conference 2017. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 617-626
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ferreira PW, Nogueira PJ, de Araújo Nobre MA, Guedes CM, Salvado F. Impact of mechanical complications on success of dental implant treatments: a case-control study. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 179-187
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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 (02) 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wong AT, Wat PY, Pow EH, Leung KC. Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (04) e68-e71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Herber R-P, Fong J, Lucas SA, Ho SP. Imaging an adapted dentoalveolar complex. Anat Res Int 2012; 2012: 782571
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wolpoff MH. Interstitial wear. Am J Phys Anthropol 1971; 34 (02) 205-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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 (04) 279-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bernard JP, Schatz JP, 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 (11) 1024-1028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Greenstein G, Carpentieri J, Cavallaro J. Open contacts adjacent to dental implant restorations: etiology, incidence, consequences, and correction. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147 (01) 28-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wat PY, Wong AT, Leung KC, Pow EH. Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 105 (01) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Liu X, Liu J, Zhou J, Tan J. Closing open contacts adjacent to an implant-supported restoration. J Dent Sci 2019; 14 (02) 216-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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 (01) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Varthis S, Tarnow DP, Randi A. Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent teeth. Prevalence–causes–possible solutions. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (02) e806-e810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Asar S, Jalalpour S, Ayoubi F, Rahmani M, Rezaeian M. PRISMA; preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Majallah-i Ilmi-i Danishgah-i Ulum-i Pizishki-i Rafsanjan 2016; 15 (01) 68-80
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA. et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7 (01) 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Silva V, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R. Overview of systematic reviews—a new type of study. Part II. Sao Paulo Med J 2015; 133 (03) 206-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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 (02) 213-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Zeng BJ, Guo Y, Yu RY. [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 2018; 50 (03) 553-559
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Luo Q, Ding Q, Zhang L, Peng D, Xie QF. [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 (01) 15-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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 (04) 437-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bento VA, Gomes JM, Lemos CA, Limirio JP, Rosa CD, Pellizzer EP. Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021; S0022-3913 (21) 00333-00334
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Manicone PF, De Angelis P, Rella E, Papetti L, D'Addona A. Proximal contact loss in implant-supported restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. J Prosthodont 2022; 31 (03) 201-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Oh W-S, Oh J, Valcanaia AJ. 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 (06) e99-e108
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T, Hämmerle CHF. Frequency of infraposition and missing contact points in implant-supported restorations within natural dentitions over time: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (Suppl. 18) 309-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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 (03) 625-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pang NS, Suh CS, Kim KD, Park W, Jung BY. 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 (12) 1501-1508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Varthis S, Randi A, Tarnow DP. Prevalence of interproximal open contacts between single-implant restorations and adjacent teeth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31 (05) 1089-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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 (04) 302-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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 (02) 108-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Shi J-Y, Zhu Y, Gu YX, Lai HC. 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 (01) 165-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Byun SJ, Heo SM, Ahn SG, 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 (06) 709-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 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 (06) 535-540
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Liang CH, Nien CY, Chen YL, Hsu KW. 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 (03) 351-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Oesterle LJ, Cronin Jr RJ. Adult growth, aging, and the single-tooth implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15 (02) 252-260
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Chang M, Wennström JL. Longitudinal changes in tooth/single-implant relationship and bone topography: an 8-year retrospective analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (03) 388-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar