Proximal contact loss between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A qualitative systematic review of prevalence, influencing factors and implications

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of proximal contact loss (PCL) between implant prostheses and natural teeth, and identify the risk factors and implications associated with PCL. Data/sourcesPubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Library Database, Scopus, EMBASE, Open Grey, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science were electronically searched to retrieve clinical studies on PCL around implant prostheses up to September 2021. Study selectionA total of 19 studies were eligible. The short-term studies (less than 2 years) revealed a PCL prevalence of 11–30%, the medium-term studies (2–5 years) indicated a PCL prevalence of 13–65%, and the long-term studies (more than 5 years) showed a PCL prevalence of 29–83.3%. The likely influencing factors were the duration of service and the mesial location of proximal contacts. Other factors, such as occlusion, vitality of adjacent teeth, implant location, patient age and splinting had a less obvious relation to PCL. The reported implications of PCL were food impaction and patient dissatisfaction. Bone loss, peri-implant inflammation, bleeding on probing and pocket depth had a less clear association with PCL. ConclusionsPCL development between implant prostheses and natural teeth is frequent, inevitable and progressive. While the review identified several influencing factors and implications of PCL, future research is needed to outline the influence of prosthesis design on PCL and food impaction. Clinical significancePatients with implant prostheses should be informed about PCL likelihood and the risk of food impaction around implant prostheses. The proximal contact quality and its implications should be monitored during the review visits.