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

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. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the proportion of reported p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2023-03, Vol.129 (3), p.404-412
Hauptverfasser: Bento, Victor Augusto Alves, Gomes, Jessica M.L., Lemos, Cleidiel A.A., Limirio, João P.J.O., Rosa, Cleber D.D.R.D., Pellizzer, Eduardo P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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. 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. 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. 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: I2=98%; t2=0.578; P
ISSN:0022-3913
1097-6841
DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.025