We have detected that you are using an Ad Blocker. PracticeUpdate is free to end users but we rely on advertising to fund our site. Please consider supporting PracticeUpdate by whitelisting us in your ad blocker.
We have sent a message to the email address you have provided, . If this email is not correct, please update your settings with your correct address.
The email address you provided during registration, , does not appear to be valid. Please update your settings with a valid address before to continue using PracticeUpdate.
A PracticeUpdate collaboration from Elsevier and the American Dental Association
Through the PracticeUpdate Clinical Dentistry Channel, Elsevier and the ADA have teamed up to bring you expert-curated updates from journals, news and educational resources, available 24/7, to keep you current with clinical advances.
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.
You can find your saved items on your dashboard, in the "saved" tab.
You've recommended your first item
Your recommendations help us improve our content suggestions for you and other PracticeUpdate members.
You've subscribed to your first topic alert
What does that mean?
Each day, we'll check to see if new items have been published to the topics you're subscribed to, and we'll send you one email with all of the new items from that day.
We'll keep all topic alert notifications available on your dashboard for 30 days, to make sure you don't miss anything.
Lastly, whenever you have unread items in the topics you've subscribed to, the "Alerts" icon will light up in the main menu. Just click on the bell to see your five most-recent, unread notifications.
This retrospective analysis assessed the frequency and quantity of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth after 10 years of follow-up. ICL was observed in 50% of implant sites with mesial contact points (CPs) significantly more prone to ICL than distal CPs. The mesial side of the implant-supported fixed dental prostheses was significantly more prone to ICL than the mesial CPs of single crowns. Significantly higher probing depths were observed in the maxilla than in the mandible.
This study sheds light on the magnitude and potential implications of adverse effects of osseointegrated implants functioning among natural teeth. ICL occurred in 50% of implant sites, occurred more significantly at mesial CPs than at distal CPs, and was significantly associated with an increase in probing depth.
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).
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 the following: Stone casts were scanned and superimposed for metric assessment of tooth movements, radiographs, and clinical measurements. Outcome measures at implant sites were as follows: 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 modeling with robust standard errors to account for within-patient clustering at 5%.
Interproximal contact loss 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 = .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 = .04). ICL was also associated with a significant increase in PD (+0.46 mm (95% CI = 0.04-0.88 mm; p = .03)) compared to implant sites without ICL. BOP, MBLs, and PCR were not significantly influenced by ICL.
Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.