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

被引:5
|
作者
Fathi, Amirhossein [1 ]
Mosharraf, Ramin [1 ]
Ebadian, Behnaz [2 ]
Javan, Mehdi
Isler, Sabire [3 ]
Dezaki, Sara Nasrollahi [4 ]
机构
[1] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Dent Mat Res Ctr, Esfahan, Iran
[2] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Dent Implants Res Ctr, Esfahan, Iran
[3] Istanbul Univ, Dept Prosthodont, Istanbul, Turkiye
[4] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Dent, Dent Students Res Comm, Esfahan, Iran
关键词
proximal contact loss; implant-supported prostheses; adjacent natural teeth; FIXED DENTAL PROSTHESES; INTERPROXIMAL CONTACT; POSTERIOR REGION; RESTORATIONS;
D O I
10.1055/s-0042-1745771
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:742 / 748
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Food Impaction and Periodontal/Peri-Implant Tissue Conditions in Relation to the Embrasure Dimensions Between Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Adjacent Teeth: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Jeong, Jin-Seok
    Chang, Moontaek
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2015, 86 (12) : 1314 - 1320
  • [22] Planning for Immediate Loading of Implant-Supported Prostheses: Literature Review
    Delben, Juliana Aparecida
    Goiato, Marcelo Coelho
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    Magro Filho, Osvaldo
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2012, 38 (01) : 504 - 508
  • [23] A two-year prospective study to compare the peri-implant parameters of posterior implant-supported single crowns with and without mesial proximal contact loss
    Ko, Kai -Wen
    Cheng, Chih-Wen
    Hsu, Yu-Jui
    Chiu, Wu -Ping
    Lin, Feng-Chang
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2024, 19 (03) : 1673 - 1679
  • [24] Bone loss of immediately loaded implants with implant-supported and tooth-implant-supported fixed maxillary prostheses
    Heinemann, Friedhelm
    Mundt, Torsten
    Schwahn, Christian
    Hasan, Istabrak
    BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING-BIOMEDIZINISCHE TECHNIK, 2012, 57 (01): : 33 - 38
  • [25] Cement Selection for Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review
    Nematollahi, Fatemeh
    Beyabanaki, Elaheh
    Alikhasi, Marzieh
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2016, 25 (07): : 599 - 606
  • [26] Importance of a distal proximal contact on load transfer by implant-supported single adjacent crowns in posterior region of the mandible: a photoelastic study
    de Aguiar Junior, Fabio Afranio
    Tiossi, Rodrigo
    Macedo, Ana Paula
    Chiarello de Mattos, Maria da Gloria
    Ribeiro, Ricardo Faria
    Silveira Rodrigues, Renata Cristina
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED ORAL SCIENCE, 2013, 21 (05) : 397 - 402
  • [27] Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido
    Verri, Fellippo Ramos
    de Luna Gomes, Jessica Marcela
    de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
    Cruz, Ronaldo Silva
    Fernandes e Oliveira, Hiskell Francine
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 121 (06) : 879 - +
  • [28] Clinical outcomes of full arch fixed implant-supported zirconia prostheses: A systematic review
    Bidra, Avinash
    Rungruanganunt, Patchanee
    Gauthier, Marissa
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2017, 10 : 35 - 45
  • [29] Comparison of the Crestal Bone Loss Between Implant-Supported Prosthesis With Sinus Augmentation and Distal Cantilevered Implant-Supported Prosthesis Without Sinus Augmentation
    Dereci, Omur
    Mumcu, Emre
    Kosar, Yasin Caglar
    Fadhil, Sadeq Mohammed Taqi
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2021, 47 (05) : 401 - 406
  • [30] Survival rates and complication behaviour of tooth implant-supported, fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Von Stein-Lausnitz, Manja
    Nickenig, Hans-Joachim
    Wolfart, Stefan
    Neumann, Konrad
    Von Stein-Lausnitz, Axel
    Spies, Benedikt Christopher
    Baler, Florian
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2019, 88