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
Postgraduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba Dental School, UNESP, Univ Estadual Paulista, Araçatuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Postgraduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba Dental School, UNESP, Univ Estadual Paulista, Araçatuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Mar;129(3):404-412. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.025. Epub 2021 Jul 19.
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: I=98%; t=0.578; P<.01). From the subanalysis, the mesial contact (47%; confidence interval: 32% to 62%; heterogeneity: I= 96%; t=0.657; P<.01) and the mandibular arch (41%; confidence interval: 30% to 52%; heterogeneity: I=92%; t=0.302; P<.01) were found to have higher prevalence.
The prevalence of proximal contact loss was high, occurring more frequently with the mesial contact and in the mandibular arch. Significant differences were not found in relation to sex or between the posterior and anterior regions.
种植体支持的修复体与相邻天然牙之间的近中接触丧失是临床实践中已报道的一种并发症。然而,该病症的患病率尚不清楚。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估种植体支持的修复体与相邻天然牙之间报道的近中接触丧失的比例。
本系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)方法标准,并在国际前瞻性系统评价注册平台(PROSPERO)(CRD42021225138)上注册。通过使用PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行电子检索至2020年9月。制定的人群、干预措施、对照、结局(PICO)问题是“种植体支持的修复体与相邻天然牙之间的近中接触丧失是否存在相关性?”进行单臂比例荟萃分析以评估生存率和并发症发生率的累积患病率。
本评价纳入10项研究,其中一半研究的近中接触丧失率高于50%。在总体分析中,开放性近中接触的累积比例为41%(置信区间:30%至53%;异质性:I=98%;t=0.578;P<.01)。从亚组分析中发现,近中接触(47%;置信区间:32%至62%;异质性:I=96%;t=0.657;P<.01)和下颌牙弓(41%;置信区间:30%至52%;异质性:I=92%;t=0.302;P<.01)的患病率较高。
近中接触丧失的患病率较高,在近中接触和下颌牙弓中更频繁发生。在性别方面或前后牙区域之间未发现显著差异。