Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shima Ghasemi; Laleh Oveisi-Oskouei; Ali Torab; Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr; Amirreza Babaloo; Nafiseh Vahed; Nasrin Abolhasanpour; Sina Taghilou; Atieh Ghasemi

doi:10.34172/japid.2022.023

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2022 Nov 12;14(2):119-133. doi: 10.34172/japid.2022.023. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Shima Ghasemi¹, Laleh Oveisi-Oskouei², Ali Torab¹, Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr³, Amirreza Babaloo⁴, Nafiseh Vahed³, Nasrin Abolhasanpour³, Sina Taghilou², Atieh Ghasemi⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
² Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
³ Research Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
⁴ Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
⁵ Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Abstract

Background. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of proximal contact loss and its associated factors. Methods. A bibliographic search was conducted in June 2021 with no limitation in the article date or language and updated in January 2022 by hand searching. There was no time limit on the search to retrieve all studies. The search included randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments, and cross-sectional or cohort studies were included in the absence of these studies. Two authors screened the title and abstract. After evaluating the full texts of selected articles, irrelevant studies and or non-English papers that were impossible to translate were excluded. Disagreements between the re-viewers' selection process were resolved by debate on the eligibility of studies. Standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute for different types of studies were used to assess the studies' quality. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (Version 2.2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used for data analysis. Results. The proximal contact loss (PCL) frequency was %29. According to the results, the frequencies of PCL for the distal and mesial aspects were %7 and %21, respectively. The meta-analysis results showed that the contact loss events on the mesial aspect were statistically higher than on the distal aspect (P<0.0001). There were no significant differences between other associated factors such as the mandibular or maxillary arch, retention type, opposing dentition, implant type, molar or non-molar, parafunction behaviors, and vitality of adjacent teeth. There was a significant association between bone loss and PCL, and in individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher (OR: %95[ 2.43 CI: 4.03‒1.47], P=0.0006). The PCL in the anterior area was lower than in the posterior area (P=0.004). Although the frequency of contact loss in females was higher than in males, this rate was not statistically significant. Conclusion. The PCL on the mesial aspect and the posterior area was high. In individuals with bone loss >%50, the proximal contact loss was higher than in others.

Keywords: Adjacent teeth; prosthesis; proximal contact loss; systematic review.