Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 24/11/2023
Abstract Views: 149
Views pdf: 80
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v532i1.7332
Issue
Vol. 532 No. 1 (2023)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Ngô, T. V., Hoàng, K. L., Phạm, M. T., Phạm, T. H., & Lê, H. A. (2023). INTERPROXIMAL CONTACT LOSS BETWEEN IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS AND ADJACENT NATURAL TEETH: RISK RATIO AND SOME RELATED FACTORS. Vietnam Medical Journal, 532(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v532i1.7332

INTERPROXIMAL CONTACT LOSS BETWEEN IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS AND ADJACENT NATURAL TEETH: RISK RATIO AND SOME RELATED FACTORS

Tiến Viễn Ngô1,, Kim Loan Hoàng1, Minh Tú Phạm1, Thanh Hà Phạm2, Huệ Anh Lê3
1 HMU
2 Hanoi Central Dental Hospital
3 VNU Hanoi-University of Medicine and Pharmacy

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of open contacts between single implant-supported fixed protheses and adjacent natural teeth and to evaluate the risk factors associated with interproximal contact loss (ICL). Subjects and methods: 126 single implant-supported fixed prostheses in 82 patients (41 males and 41 females) were included in the study. Clinical examinations were performed to assess the prevalence and risk factors of interproximal contact loss relating to patient (age, sex), implant prosthesis (delivery time, restoration material, location) and adjacent tooth (mesial or distal side, restored or original crown). Patients were asked about their feeling of food impaction then the concerns were re-examined by researchers, using waxing dental floss to confirm the presence of food debris. Periapical radiographs were used to investigate the crestal bone loss at the interproximal contact points. Results: Interproximal contact loss has occurred in 23.1% cases, Mesial contact points were significantly more prone to ICL than distal ones (p=0.000, 95%CI). Delivery time and food impaction had a significant effect on ICL. Meanwhile, implant location, patient’s sex and age were not significant risk factors of ICL. Conclusions: Interproximal contact loss is a frequent complication with many related factors. However, its importance has been underestimated.

Article Details

References

1. 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. Mar 2022;31(3):201-209.
2. Yen JY, Kang L, Chou IC, Lai YL, Lee SY. Risk assessment of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth: A retrospective radiographic study. J Prosthet Dent. Jan 2022;127(1):86-92.
3. French D, Grandin HM, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4,591 dental implants: Analysis of risk indicators for bone loss and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. J Periodontol. Jul 2019;90(7):691-700.
4. Bompolaki D, Edmondson SA, Katancik JA. Interproximal contact loss between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 83 restorations with an up to 10-year follow-up. J Prosthet Dent. Mar 2022;127(3):418-424.
5. 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. Apr 2016;115(4):437-40.
6. Varthis S, Randi A, Tarnow DP. Prevalence of Interproximal Open Contacts Between Single-Implant Restorations and Adjacent Teeth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Sep-Oct 2016;31(5):1089-92.
7. 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. Jun 2015;26(6):709-14.
8. Southard TE, Behrents RG, Tolley EA. The anterior component of occlusal force. Part 2. Relationship with dental malalignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Jan 1990;97(1):41-4.