George C Pappous, Stephen Campbell, Gary Goldstein
{"title":"导致种植体冠与天然牙近端接触丧失的危险因素。","authors":"George C Pappous, Stephen Campbell, Gary Goldstein","doi":"10.1111/jopr.13992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Interproximal contact loss (ICL) is considered a prevalent complication for a tooth abutting an implant restoration. While numerous potential causes for ICL have been presented, there is no consensus. A review of the current literature with a focus on possible risk factors was performed.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A PubMed search using keywords \"implant OR dental implants OR implant supported prosthesis AND proximal contact loss OR ICL OR loss of interproximal contact OR open contact OR interproximal open contact OR adjacent natural teeth\" resulted in 81 citations, 9 of which were relevant to the focus question. Additional references were culled from the reference lists in the identified articles. Systematic reviews, case series, and case reports were reviewed with a focus on causation, association, or correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight systematic reviews and 14 case series were reviewed. The prevalence of ICL has been reported to be as low as 16% and as high as 66%. ICL was more common on the mesial side of implants and when a tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. The absence of a uniform definition to accurately describe an interproximal (IP) contact and an open IP contact is demonstrated in the literature. A lack of standardized measurement strategies that relate to a needed consensus definition further exacerbates the broad range of reported results regarding ICL. The lack of controls for almost all the ICL literature makes it difficult to draw conclusions and comparisons to unrestored, natural tooth IP contacts and the prevalence of ICL in this patient population. As a result, the available studies are inadequate to support a causal theory and the potential risk factors associated with ICL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a large range of reported prevalence for IP contact loss. ICL is more common when a natural tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. ICL is more common on the mesial, as opposed to the distal, of an implant retained restoration. Consensus in the definition and measurement strategies for ICL needs to be established to provide standardized terminology and methodology. Potential risk factors such as occlusion, restorative material, and tooth contact area need to be investigated.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk factors contributing to interproximal contact loss between an implant crown and a natural tooth.\",\"authors\":\"George C Pappous, Stephen Campbell, Gary Goldstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jopr.13992\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Interproximal contact loss (ICL) is considered a prevalent complication for a tooth abutting an implant restoration. While numerous potential causes for ICL have been presented, there is no consensus. A review of the current literature with a focus on possible risk factors was performed.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A PubMed search using keywords \\\"implant OR dental implants OR implant supported prosthesis AND proximal contact loss OR ICL OR loss of interproximal contact OR open contact OR interproximal open contact OR adjacent natural teeth\\\" resulted in 81 citations, 9 of which were relevant to the focus question. Additional references were culled from the reference lists in the identified articles. Systematic reviews, case series, and case reports were reviewed with a focus on causation, association, or correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight systematic reviews and 14 case series were reviewed. The prevalence of ICL has been reported to be as low as 16% and as high as 66%. ICL was more common on the mesial side of implants and when a tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. The absence of a uniform definition to accurately describe an interproximal (IP) contact and an open IP contact is demonstrated in the literature. A lack of standardized measurement strategies that relate to a needed consensus definition further exacerbates the broad range of reported results regarding ICL. The lack of controls for almost all the ICL literature makes it difficult to draw conclusions and comparisons to unrestored, natural tooth IP contacts and the prevalence of ICL in this patient population. As a result, the available studies are inadequate to support a causal theory and the potential risk factors associated with ICL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a large range of reported prevalence for IP contact loss. ICL is more common when a natural tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. ICL is more common on the mesial, as opposed to the distal, of an implant retained restoration. Consensus in the definition and measurement strategies for ICL needs to be established to provide standardized terminology and methodology. Potential risk factors such as occlusion, restorative material, and tooth contact area need to be investigated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13992\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13992","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:近端接触丢失(ICL)被认为是与种植体修复牙相邻的常见并发症。虽然已经提出了许多ICL的潜在原因,但没有达成共识。回顾了当前的文献,重点是可能的危险因素。材料与方法:在PubMed检索关键词“implant OR dental implant OR implant supported prosthesis and近端接触体loss OR ICL OR近端接触体loss of近端接触体OR开放接触体OR近端开放接触体OR邻近天然牙”,得到81条引用,其中9条与焦点问题相关。从确定文章的参考文献列表中剔除了其他参考文献。系统回顾、病例系列和病例报告的重点是因果关系、关联或相关性。结果:回顾了8个系统综述和14个病例系列。据报道,ICL的患病率低至16%,高至66%。ICL更常见于种植体的内侧,当牙齿与夹板种植体修复体相邻时。缺乏统一的定义来准确地描述近端间(IP)接触和开放的IP接触在文献中得到了证明。缺乏与必要的共识定义相关的标准化测量策略进一步加剧了关于ICL报告结果的广泛范围。由于缺乏对几乎所有ICL文献的对照,因此很难得出结论,并将其与未修复的自然牙齿接触面和ICL在该患者群体中的患病率进行比较。因此,现有的研究不足以支持与ICL相关的因果理论和潜在危险因素。结论:有很大范围的报道流行的IP接触丢失。当天然牙与夹板种植体修复体相邻时,ICL更为常见。ICL更常见于种植体保留修复体的内侧,而不是远端。需要在ICL的定义和测量策略方面达成共识,以提供标准化的术语和方法。潜在的危险因素,如咬合、修复材料和牙齿接触面积需要调查。
Risk factors contributing to interproximal contact loss between an implant crown and a natural tooth.
Purpose: Interproximal contact loss (ICL) is considered a prevalent complication for a tooth abutting an implant restoration. While numerous potential causes for ICL have been presented, there is no consensus. A review of the current literature with a focus on possible risk factors was performed.
Materials and methods: A PubMed search using keywords "implant OR dental implants OR implant supported prosthesis AND proximal contact loss OR ICL OR loss of interproximal contact OR open contact OR interproximal open contact OR adjacent natural teeth" resulted in 81 citations, 9 of which were relevant to the focus question. Additional references were culled from the reference lists in the identified articles. Systematic reviews, case series, and case reports were reviewed with a focus on causation, association, or correlation.
Results: Eight systematic reviews and 14 case series were reviewed. The prevalence of ICL has been reported to be as low as 16% and as high as 66%. ICL was more common on the mesial side of implants and when a tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. The absence of a uniform definition to accurately describe an interproximal (IP) contact and an open IP contact is demonstrated in the literature. A lack of standardized measurement strategies that relate to a needed consensus definition further exacerbates the broad range of reported results regarding ICL. The lack of controls for almost all the ICL literature makes it difficult to draw conclusions and comparisons to unrestored, natural tooth IP contacts and the prevalence of ICL in this patient population. As a result, the available studies are inadequate to support a causal theory and the potential risk factors associated with ICL.
Conclusions: There is a large range of reported prevalence for IP contact loss. ICL is more common when a natural tooth abuts a splinted implant restoration. ICL is more common on the mesial, as opposed to the distal, of an implant retained restoration. Consensus in the definition and measurement strategies for ICL needs to be established to provide standardized terminology and methodology. Potential risk factors such as occlusion, restorative material, and tooth contact area need to be investigated.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.