Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35194854›Full record

ArticleClinical oral implants research2022

Interproximal contact loss at implant sites: a retrospective clinical study with a 10-year follow-up.

Thomas J W Gasser, Spyridon N Papageorgiou, Theodore Eliades, Christoph H F Hämmerle, Daniel S Thoma

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06475313 (Risk Assessment of Proximal Contact Loss Between Implant-supported Prostheses and Adjacent Teeth.), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06475313 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Risk Assessment of Proximal Contact Loss Between Implant-supported Prostheses and Adjacent Teeth.

TypeobservationalSponsorNanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical UniversityRan2024 to 2024Enrolled100ConditionsPeri-Implantitis and Peri-implant MucositisArmsplaque index assessment, periodontal probing, Bleeding on probing (BOP), Prosthetic adjacency check, initial occlusal contact, maximum occlusal contact, and filling of the cusps.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas J W GasserClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3161-6065
Spyridon N PapageorgiouClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1968-3326
Theodore EliadesClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-4979
Christoph H F HämmerleClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-7347
Daniel S ThomaClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo 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).

methodsThirty-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%.

resultsInterproximal 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.

conclusionInterproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsToothCrownsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesDental Implantsdigital measurementimplant-tooth gapinterproximal contacttooth movement

Identifiers

PMID35194854
PMCPMC9311812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.