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

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

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the risk of tooth loss for teeth adjacent and nonadjacent to dental implants.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

The 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).

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Efficacy of customized crown-level position jig in measuring peri-implant crestal bone level on periapical radiographs: An in vitro study

Background/purpose

Accuracy of using implant length on periapical radiographs as calibration reference for measurements has not been verified. This study aimed to verify the measurements of peri-implant crestal bone level (piCBL) on periapical radiographs taken by the paralleling technique and using the implant length for calibration; and to propose a customized crownlevel position (CLP) jig to improve the measurement accuracy of piCBL.

Materials and methods

A typodont installed an implant and a screw-retained crown at maxillary central incisor was used. To simulate piCBL, a metal post was placed near the implant at the same height of implant platform. The CLP jig was designed and 3-dimensionally printed out to allow implant projected orthogonally on periapical film. Thirty periapical radiographs were taken using paralleling technique with and without the jig by three examiners. The implant axis and implant length on radiographs were acquired by image segmentation. The discrepancy of piCBL determination (ΔD) from these measurements were compared and further analyzed when using the implant length for calibration.

Results

The piCBL measurement errors were smaller when the jig was used for all examiners (P < 0.001). The inter-rater differences were insignificant. After calibration, ΔD with and without jig were 0.09 (0.07-0.11) and 0.43 (0.38-0.49) mm, respectively.

Conclusion

Conventional long-cone paralleling technique using true implant length for calibration demonstrated imprecise piCBL measurement on periapical radiographs. Transferring the implant axis to the CLP jig allowed orthogonal projection of radiography which provided reliable measurements of piCBL with an accuracy of less than 0.1 mm.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2022 dental literature to briefly touch on several topics of interest to modern restorative dentistry. Each committee member brings discipline-specific expertise in their subject areas that include (in order of the appearance in this report): prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence the daily dental treatment decisions of the reader with an emphasis on innovations, new materials and processes, and future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of literature published daily in dentistry and related disciplines, this review cannot be comprehensive. Instead, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide valuable resource material for those willing to subsequently pursue greater detail on their own. Our intent remains to assist colleagues in navigating the tremendous volume of newly minted information produced annually. Finally, we hope that readers find this work helpful in managing patients.

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of proximal contact loss and its associated factors. Methods. A bibliographic search was conducted in June 2021 with no limitation in the article date or language and updated in January 2022 by hand searching. There was no time limit on the search to retrieve all studies. The search included randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments, and cross-sectional or cohort studies were included in the absence of these studies. Two authors screened the title and abstract. After evaluating the full texts of selected articles, irrelevant studies and or non-English papers that were impossible to translate were excluded. Disagreements between the re-viewers' selection process were resolved by debate on the eligibility of studies. Standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute for different types of studies were used to assess the studies' quality. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (Version 2.2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used for data analysis. Results. The proximal contact loss (PCL) frequency was %29. According to the results, the frequencies of PCL for the distal and mesial aspects were %7 and %21, respectively. The meta-analysis results showed that the contact loss events on the mesial aspect were statistically higher than on the distal aspect (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences between other associated factors such as the mandibular or maxillary arch, retention type, opposing dentition, implant type, molar or non-molar, parafunction behaviors, and vitality of adjacent teeth. There was a significant association between bone loss and PCL, and in individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher (OR: %95[ 2.43 CI: 4.03‒1.47], P=0.0006). The PCL in the anterior area was lower than in the posterior area (P=0.004). Although the frequency of contact loss in females was higher than in males, this rate was not statistically significant. Conclusion. The PCL on the mesial aspect and the posterior area was high. In individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher than in others.

Impact of maxillofacial growth on implants placed in adults: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of lifetime maxillofacial changes on dental implants placed in adults, analyze the clinical implications of these changes, identify prognostic factors, and offer possible solutions.

OVERVIEW

The relationship between implant placement and maxillofacial changes, occurring during not only the active growth period but also the entire span of adulthood, has not been extensively examined. Vertical differences between implants and adjacent teeth due to the ankylotic behavior of the former might be observed at any age and endanger restoration biologically, functionally, and esthetically. Regarding interproximal contacts, firm contact loss may occur within a few months after restoration, resulting in food impaction. Many prognostic factors have been reported, but most do not exhibit a statistically significant association with implant infraocclusion and interproximal contact loss. Incorporation of alternative solutions, accurate treatment planning, strict recall protocols, and retrievability of implant-supported restorations can facilitate efficient management of complications.

CONCLUSION

Maxillomandibular changes throughout adulthood may lead to complications such as implant infraocclusion and interproximal contact loss. Rehabilitation of edentulism should be characterized by well-designed and flexible treatment plans to resolve long-term complications efficiently. Further long-term clinical studies are needed to identify other risk factors.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Treatment plans for implant therapy should be reconsidered for adults. Careful patient monitoring and early intervention are essential for securing treatment outcomes.

Biomechanical behaviour of implant prostheses and adjacent teeth according to bone quality: A finite element analysis

The contribution of biomechanical factors in the formation of proximal contact loss has been observed, but there is little research on the mechanisms by which they contribute. Using finite element analysis, this study aimed to analyse the impact of bone quality on the biomechanical behaviour of a dentition consisting of implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. The occlusal load was applied on the implant/tooth crown. In the mesiodistal direction, the adjacent natural tooth mesially to the implant denture had the tendency for mesial movement, while the distal adjacent natural tooth had the tendency for distal movement. For the supporting bone around the mesial adjacent tooth, the maximum/minimum principal stress and strain values on the mesial side of the bone were higher than those on the distal side of the bone. Stress and strain values on the mesial side of the supporting bone around the distal adjacent tooth were lower than those on the distal side. With decreasing bone density, displacements of teeth and the implant denture, principal stresses and equivalent strains on tooth supporting bone increased. Studies on biomechanical behaviours of a tooth-implant dentition may provide a deeper understanding of implant-induced dental adaptive processes such as proximal contact loss.

Proximal Contact Loss in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence

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.

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

AIM

To assess the frequency and quantity of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth after at least 10 years of follow-up (FU).

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients (median age 57.3 years) with 80 implants were re-examined at least 10 years after insertion of final restorations (single-crowns or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)). Baseline (insertion of the restorations) and FU examinations encompassed: stone casts were scanned and superimposed for metric assessment of tooth movements, radiographs and clinical measurements. Outcome measures at implant sites were: the extent of tooth movement and the frequency of interproximal contact loss [ICL], peri-implant marginal bone levels [MBLs], and clinical measurements (plaque control record [PCR], bleeding on probing [BOP] and probing depth [PD]). Data were analyzed statistically with generalized regression modelling with robust standard errors to account for within-patient clustering at 5%.

RESULTS

ICL for at least one contact point after 10 years was observed in 50% of all implants (with open interproximal spaces up to 1.64 mm). Mesial contact points were significantly more prone to ICL than distal ones (relative risk [RR]=1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.07-2.99; p=0.03). The type of restoration had a significant effect on ICL, with FDPs of 2 implants being significantly more prone to mesial ICL than single crowns (RR=1.52; 95% CI=1.02-2.25; p=0.04). ICL was also associated with a significant increase in PD (+0.46 mm (95% CI=0.04-0.88 mm; P=0.03)) compared to implant sites without ICL. BOP, MBLs and PCR were not significantly influenced by ICL.

CONCLUSION

ICL was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.