Department of General Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
J Prosthodont. 2024 Apr;33(4):313-323. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13780. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age, gender, follow-up time, and arch location.
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "What is the prevalence of the ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth?" The search strategy used four main electronic databases and an additional manual search was performed until February 2023. Clinical studies that evaluated the prevalence of interproximal open contact between implant restorations and adjacent teeth were included. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. In addition, a single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the percentage of mesial versus distal open contact and total ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth.
Fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2023 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented ICL rates higher than 20%. All studies evaluated ICL in posterior regions (molar, premolar area). Five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50% and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. One study assessed the interproximal contact at three months post-restoration insertion, four studies assessed the interproximal contact at 1-year follow-up and nine studies evaluated the interproximal contact over 2 years of follow-up. Mesial and distal ICL rates were 44.2% (95% CI: 30.6% to 58.6%) and 27.5% (95% CI: 10.5% to 55.0%), respectively. The heterogeneity between studies was high (I (95% CI) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%).
Based on the results of the included studies, the prevalence of ICL was high, occurring more frequently at the mesial contact. There were no significant differences in relation to age, gender, and arch location.
本系统评价旨在评估种植体修复体与相邻牙齿之间的近中接触丧失（ICL）的发生率与年龄、性别、随访时间和牙弓位置的关系。
本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，并在开放科学框架（OSF）中进行了注册。制定的人群、干预、比较、结局（PICO）问题是“种植体修复体与相邻牙齿之间的 ICL 发生率是多少？”使用四个主要电子数据库和一个额外的手动搜索策略进行了搜索，检索时间截至 2023 年 2 月。纳入评估种植体修复体与相邻牙齿之间近中开放接触发生率的临床研究。使用临床研究的定性分析来评估偏倚风险。此外，还进行了单臂比例荟萃分析，以评估种植体修复体与相邻牙齿之间近中与远中开放接触和总 ICL 的百分比。
2014 年至 2023 年期间发表的 15 项研究符合纳入标准。7 项研究报告的 ICL 发生率高于 20%。所有研究均评估了后牙区（磨牙、前磨牙区）的 ICL。5 项研究的 ICL 率低于 50%，3 项研究的 ICL 率高于 50%。1 项研究评估了修复体插入后 3 个月的近中接触情况，4 项研究评估了 1 年随访时的近中接触情况，9 项研究评估了超过 2 年随访时的近中接触情况。近中与远中 ICL 发生率分别为 44.2%（95%CI：30.6%至 58.6%）和 27.5%（95%CI：10.5%至 55.0%）。研究之间的异质性很高（I（95%CI）=87.8%（75.9%至 93.8%）。
根据纳入研究的结果，ICL 的发生率较高，近中接触处更为常见。年龄、性别和牙弓位置与 ICL 发生率之间无显著差异。
