Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39820803›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Assessment of complications in adjacent natural teeth compared to contralateral teeth in single posterior implant cases.

Naama Fridenberg, Nirit Tagger-Green, Matanel Katz, Shifra Levartovsky

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Naama Fridenberg *Department of Oral Rehabilitation, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 6997801, Israel.
Nirit Tagger-Green *Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology, the Maurice and Gabriela, Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 6997801, Israel.
Matanel KatzIn Partial Fulfillment of Undergraduate Program, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger, School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shifra LevartovskyDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 6997801, Israel. shifralevartov@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osseointegrated dental implants represent a successful treatment modality for partial and complete edentulism. However, concerns persist regarding their impact on adjacent natural teeth. Conflicting literature exists regarding complications such as caries, mobility, and fractures in neighboring teeth, with few studies comparing these effects with those observed in contralateral natural teeth. This retrospective study aimed to assess the impact of single posterior implant-supported rehabilitation on adjacent natural teeth compared to contralateral teeth. We retrospectively screened and analyzed electronic records of all patients who underwent treatment with a single posterior implant-supported restoration (premolar or molar) at a single public dental clinic between August 2010 and August 2020. We evaluated adjacent natural teeth for four potential complications: primary caries, secondary caries, tooth cracks or fractures, and tooth mobility. Chi-square tests compared the occurrence and rates of complications between teeth adjacent to single implants and contralateral teeth. Additionally, we conducted statistical comparisons to analyze the types of complications observed in teeth adjacent to single implants. Among the 1100 patients who received posterior single implants during the study period, 167 patients (15.1%) experienced complications in a tooth adjacent to the implant. The majority of these complications were attributed to either primary (41.3%) or secondary (53.3%) caries. A significant correlation was observed between the type of complication in the adjacent tooth and the status of the control tooth (χ2 = 21.73, p = 0.01). Specifically, in cases of primary caries, the majority (68.1%) of control teeth remained classified as intact. Furthermore, in a comparison between teeth with crack/fracture complications and control teeth, 83.3% of control teeth remained intact (p = 0.01). Mobility complications were significantly associated with diabetic patients (p = 0.041) and a longer duration until implant rehabilitation (p = 0.006). Patients experiencing crack/fracture and mobility complications required a higher number of dental implants compared to other categories (p = 0.043). This study revealed a significant correlation between posterior single implants and the occurrence of complications in adjacent teeth, while most of the contralateral teeth remained intact. Clinical relevance. Meticulous monitoring of implant patients is crucial for assessing the condition of adjacent teeth and effectively manage potential complications, particularly in high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Implants, Single-ToothAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMolarRetrospective StudiesTooth FracturesTooth MobilityAdjacent teethCariesComplicationsContralateral natural toothSingle implant-supported restoration

Identifiers

PMID39820803
PMCPMC11739628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.