Welcome to PracticeUpdate! We hope you are enjoying access to a selection of our top-read and most recent articles. Please register today for a free account and gain full access to all of our expert-selected content.
Already Have An Account? Log in Now
Risk Factors of Interproximal Contact Loss Between an Implant Crown and a Natural Tooth
TAKE-HOME MESSAGE
- Interproximal contact loss (ICL) between a natural tooth and an implant restoration is a common complication, with prevalence rates ranging from 16% to 66%. This review of 8 systematic reviews and 14 case series highlights inconsistencies in defining and measuring ICL, contributing to the wide variability in reported data. ICL is observed more frequently on the mesial side of implant restorations and when a natural tooth is adjacent to a splinted implant–supported prosthesis. The lack of standardized terminologies, measurement methods, and control groups limits the ability to identify causal factors or risk predictors or provide insights into the prevalence and mechanisms of ICL in patients with implant-supported prostheses. Therefore, prospective controlled trials and studies with strict measurement protocols are needed.
- Clinicians should pay attention to ICL between natural teeth on the mesial side of a splinted implant–supported prosthesis.
abstract
This abstract is available on the publisher's site.
Access this abstract nowPURPOSE
Interproximal contact loss (ICL) is considered a prevalent complication for a tooth abutting an implant restoration. While numerous potential causes for ICL have been presented, there is no consensus. A review of the current literature with a focus on possible risk factors was performed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A PubMed search using keywords "implant OR dental implants OR implant supported prosthesis AND proximal contact loss OR ICL OR loss of interproximal contact OR open contact OR interproximal open contact OR adjacent natural teeth" resulted in 81 citations, 9 of which were relevant to the focus question. Additional references were culled from the reference lists in the identified articles. Systematic reviews, case series, and case reports were reviewed with a focus on causation, association, or correlation.
RESULTS
Eight systematic reviews and 14 case series were reviewed. The prevalence of ICL has been reported to be as low as 16% and as high as 66%. ICL was more common on the mesial side of implants and when a tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. The absence of a uniform definition to accurately describe an interproximal (IP) contact and an open IP contact is demonstrated in the literature. A lack of standardized measurement strategies that relate to a needed consensus definition further exacerbates the broad range of reported results regarding ICL. The lack of controls for almost all the ICL literature makes it difficult to draw conclusions and comparisons to unrestored, natural tooth IP contacts and the prevalence of ICL in this patient population. As a result, the available studies are inadequate to support a causal theory and the potential risk factors associated with ICL.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a large range of reported prevalence for IP contact loss. ICL is more common when a natural tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. ICL is more common on the mesial, as opposed to the distal, of an implant retained restoration. Consensus in the definition and measurement strategies for ICL needs to be established to provide standardized terminology and methodology. Potential risk factors such as occlusion, restorative material, and tooth contact area need to be investigated.
Additional Info
Disclosure statements are available on the authors' profiles:
Risk factors contributing to interproximal contact loss between an implant crown and a natural tooth
J Prosthodont 2024 Dec 05;[EPub Ahead of Print], GC Pappous, S Campbell, G GoldsteinFrom MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.