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

被引:15
|
作者
Bento, Victor Augusto Alves [1 ]
Gomes, Jessica M. L. [1 ]
Lemos, Cleidiel A. A. [1 ,2 ]
Rosa, Cleber D. D. R. D.
Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [1 ]
Limirio, Joao P. J. O. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Estadual Paulista, Aracatuba Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, UNESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[2] Fed Univ Juiz, Dept Dent, Governador Valadares,Campus Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, MG, Brazil
来源
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY | 2023年 / 129卷 / 03期
关键词
FIXED DENTAL PROSTHESES; INTERPROXIMAL CONTACT; POSTERIOR REGION; RESTORATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.025
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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: I-2=98%; t(2)=0.578; P<.01). From the subanalysis, the mesial contact (47%; confidence interval: 32% to 62%; heterogeneity: I2= 96%; t(2)=0.657; P<.01) and the mandibular arch (41%; confidence interval: 30% to 52%; heterogeneity: I-2=92%; t(2)=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. (J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:404-12)
引用
收藏
页码:404 / 412
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prevalence of Proximal Contact Loss between Implant-Supported Prostheses and Adjacent Natural Teeth: An Umbrella Review
    Fathi, Amirhossein
    Mosharraf, Ramin
    Ebadian, Behnaz
    Javan, Mehdi
    Isler, Sabire
    Dezaki, Sara Nasrollahi
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2022, 16 (04) : 742 - 748
  • [2] Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a retrospective study
    Wong, Anita T. Y.
    Wat, Peter Y. P.
    Pow, Edmond H. N.
    Leung, Katherine C. M.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2015, 26 (04) : e68 - e71
  • [3] PROXIMAL CONTACT LOSS BETWEEN IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHESES AND ADJACENT NATURAL TEETH: A CLINICAL REPORT
    Wat, Peter Y. P.
    Wong, Anita T. Y.
    Leung, Katherine C. M.
    Pow, Edmond H. N.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2011, 105 (01): : 1 - 4
  • [4] Proximal Contact Loss in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence
    Manicone, Paolo Francesco
    De Angelis, Paolo
    Rella, Edoardo
    Papetti, Laura
    D'Addona, Antonio
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2022, 31 (03): : 201 - 209
  • [5] Clinical Effects of Interproximal Contact Loss between Teeth and Implant-Supported Prostheses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Nery, James Carlos
    Manarte-Monteiro, Patricia
    Aragao, Leonardo
    da Silva, Ligia Pereira
    Pinto Brandao, Gabriel Silveira
    Lemos, Bernardo Ferreira
    PROSTHESIS, 2024, 6 (04): : 825 - 840
  • [6] Proximal contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A qualitative systematic review of prevalence, influencing factors and implications
    Abduo, Jaafar
    Lau, Douglas
    HELIYON, 2022, 8 (08)
  • [7] Interproximal contact loss between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sheba, Moamen
    Floriani, Franciele
    Nimmo, Arthur
    Ercoli, Carlo
    Hosney, Sherif
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2024, 33 (04): : 313 - 323
  • [8] Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors: a 7-year prospective study
    Pang, Nan-Sim
    Suh, Chang-Sup
    Kim, Kee-Deog
    Park, Wonse
    Jung, Bock-Young
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2017, 28 (12) : 1501 - 1508
  • [9] Open Proximal Contact with Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses Compared with Tooth-Supported Fixed Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Oh, Won-Suk
    Oh, Joon
    Valcanaia, Andre Joao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2020, 35 (06) : E99 - E108
  • [10] Implant-supported fixed prostheses with cantilever: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kondo, Yusuke
    Sakai, Kiyoshi
    Minakuchi, Hajime
    Horimai, Takuya
    Kuboki, Takuo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2024, 10 (01)