Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Precision of In Vivo Quantitative Tooth Wear Measurement Using Intra-Oral Scans
Published on: July 12, 2022
Interproximal contact loss between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and
Moamen Sheba1, Franciele Floriani2,3, Arthur Nimmo4
1Department of General Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
Purpose:
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.
Methods:
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.
Results:
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 (I2 (95% CI) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%).
Conclusion:
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.
