Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up
Aim 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). Methods Thirty‐nine patients (median age 57.3 years) with 80 implants were re‐examined at least 10 years after insertion of final re...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.482-491 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 491 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 482 |
container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Gasser, Thomas J. W. Papageorgiou, Spyridon N. Eliades, Theodore Hämmerle, Christoph H. F. Thoma, Daniel S. |
description | Aim
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).
Methods
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%.
Results
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.
Conclusion
Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13908 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9311812</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2660799615</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4438-6230644aa4504ceca103ed9b2c0d8304774236be091517706fc7db87aeee98783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc2KFDEQxxtR3HH14AtIwIseerfSSefDw4IMfiwMCKLnkEnXOFkynTZJ7zg3H8Fn9EmMzrqoYC4h1C8_qurfNI8pnNF6zl1IZ5RpUHeaBRUALfRA7zYL0NC3kgp60jzI-QoAhFb6fnPCeqq56vmi2V6OBdOU4he_s4G4OBbrCgkxZ2IL8bsp2LGQ7AvmF8SShCXFPKEr_hqJC370rv7LZR4OZO_LtjIUvn_9dkCbyCaGEPf1NU8Pm3sbGzI-urlPm4-vX31Yvm1X795cLl-uWsc5U63oGAjOreU9cIfOUmA46HXnYFAMuJS8Y2KNoGlPpQSxcXJYK2kRUSup2GlzcfRO83qHg8OxJBvMlOp86WCi9ebvyui35lO8NppRqmhXBc9uBCl-njEXs_PZYah7wDhn0wnWUa4VyIo-_Qe9inMa63iVEiC1FrSv1PMj5ermcsLNbTMUzM_8TM3P_Mqvsk_-7P6W_B1YBc6PwN4HPPzfZJar90flD0pZp1s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2660799615</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Gasser, Thomas J. W. ; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N. ; Eliades, Theodore ; Hämmerle, Christoph H. F. ; Thoma, Daniel S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gasser, Thomas J. W. ; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N. ; Eliades, Theodore ; Hämmerle, Christoph H. F. ; Thoma, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
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).
Methods
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%.
Results
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.
Conclusion
Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13908</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35194854</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Clustering ; Confidence intervals ; Contact loss ; Dental implants ; Dental prosthetics ; digital measurement ; implant–tooth gap ; Insertion ; interproximal contact ; Original ; Patients ; Prostheses ; Robustness (mathematics) ; Statistical analysis ; Teeth ; tooth movement</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.482-491</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4438-6230644aa4504ceca103ed9b2c0d8304774236be091517706fc7db87aeee98783</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4438-6230644aa4504ceca103ed9b2c0d8304774236be091517706fc7db87aeee98783</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8280-7347 ; 0000-0002-3161-6065 ; 0000-0002-1764-7447 ; 0000-0003-1968-3326 ; 0000-0003-2313-4979</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.13908$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13908$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35194854$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gasser, Thomas J. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eliades, Theodore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thoma, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><title>Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><description>Aim
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).
Methods
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%.
Results
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.
Conclusion
Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.</description><subject>Clustering</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Contact loss</subject><subject>Dental implants</subject><subject>Dental prosthetics</subject><subject>digital measurement</subject><subject>implant–tooth gap</subject><subject>Insertion</subject><subject>interproximal contact</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Robustness (mathematics)</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>tooth movement</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc2KFDEQxxtR3HH14AtIwIseerfSSefDw4IMfiwMCKLnkEnXOFkynTZJ7zg3H8Fn9EmMzrqoYC4h1C8_qurfNI8pnNF6zl1IZ5RpUHeaBRUALfRA7zYL0NC3kgp60jzI-QoAhFb6fnPCeqq56vmi2V6OBdOU4he_s4G4OBbrCgkxZ2IL8bsp2LGQ7AvmF8SShCXFPKEr_hqJC370rv7LZR4OZO_LtjIUvn_9dkCbyCaGEPf1NU8Pm3sbGzI-urlPm4-vX31Yvm1X795cLl-uWsc5U63oGAjOreU9cIfOUmA46HXnYFAMuJS8Y2KNoGlPpQSxcXJYK2kRUSup2GlzcfRO83qHg8OxJBvMlOp86WCi9ebvyui35lO8NppRqmhXBc9uBCl-njEXs_PZYah7wDhn0wnWUa4VyIo-_Qe9inMa63iVEiC1FrSv1PMj5ermcsLNbTMUzM_8TM3P_Mqvsk_-7P6W_B1YBc6PwN4HPPzfZJar90flD0pZp1s</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>Gasser, Thomas J. W.</creator><creator>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</creator><creator>Eliades, Theodore</creator><creator>Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.</creator><creator>Thoma, Daniel S.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-7347</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3161-6065</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1968-3326</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-4979</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up</title><author>Gasser, Thomas J. W. ; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N. ; Eliades, Theodore ; Hämmerle, Christoph H. F. ; Thoma, Daniel S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4438-6230644aa4504ceca103ed9b2c0d8304774236be091517706fc7db87aeee98783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Clustering</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Contact loss</topic><topic>Dental implants</topic><topic>Dental prosthetics</topic><topic>digital measurement</topic><topic>implant–tooth gap</topic><topic>Insertion</topic><topic>interproximal contact</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Robustness (mathematics)</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>tooth movement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gasser, Thomas J. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eliades, Theodore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thoma, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gasser, Thomas J. W.</au><au>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</au><au>Eliades, Theodore</au><au>Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.</au><au>Thoma, Daniel S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>482</spage><epage>491</epage><pages>482-491</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Aim
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).
Methods
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%.
Results
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.
Conclusion
Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>35194854</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13908</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-7347</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3161-6065</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1968-3326</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-4979</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.482-491 |
issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9311812 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Clustering Confidence intervals Contact loss Dental implants Dental prosthetics digital measurement implant–tooth gap Insertion interproximal contact Original Patients Prostheses Robustness (mathematics) Statistical analysis Teeth tooth movement |
title | Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T23%3A47%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interproximal%20contact%20loss%20at%20implant%20sites:%20a%20retrospective%20clinical%20study%20with%20a%2010%E2%80%90year%20follow%E2%80%90up&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Gasser,%20Thomas%20J.%20W.&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=482&rft.epage=491&rft.pages=482-491&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13908&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2660799615%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2660799615&rft_id=info:pmid/35194854&rfr_iscdi=true |