Affiliation:
1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
2. Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
3. Department of Dentistry, Government Medical College, Ratlam, India
4. Department of Prosthodontics, YCMM RDF’s Dental College, Ahmednagar, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prime concern of an implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) is to maintain an optimal proximal contact tightness, which further maintains arch integrity, improves masticatory effectiveness, and minimizes peri-implantitis. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the loss of proximal contact tightness between single tooth implant-supported prosthesis and the adjacent natural teeth. METHODS: Forty patients treated by a single mandibular first molar ISP, aged between 18–50 years were selected. All were randomly allocated in Group I and Group II. Group I, 20 subjects who have received ISP without an insertion of Essix retainer, and Group II patients received an insertion with Essix retainer. The groups were subdivided into Subgroup A, B, and Subgroup C, D, in which A and C are control groups. To measure the tightness at proximal contact points, a digital force analyzer was used. Proximal contact tightness (PCT) was measured immediately after the placement of the prosthesis, 3 months, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up respectively, and the PCT values at end of 1 year were statistically evaluated. Statistical analysis was done, mean and standard deviation was calculated by independent sample t-test wit p< 0.05 as a statistically significant value. RESULTS: In Group I, towards the end of 1 year, 2.09 N (65.5%) and 1.50 N (53.1%) loss of PCT were found on mesial and distal contact areas respectively. In Group II, loss of PCT at mesial contact area was 0.87 N (28.9%) and at distal contact area was 1.77 N (53.3%), which is significantly less compared with the non-usage of Essix retainer (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: The usage of Essix retainer, PCT increases especially on the mesial contact area. The frequency of contact loss was decreased. Thus, to minimize the loss of proximal contact the usage of Essix retainer is recommended.
Subject
Health Informatics,Biomedical Engineering,Information Systems,Biomaterials,Bioengineering,Biophysics
Reference21 articles.
1. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 2 21.
2. Statistical analysis of the diachronic loss of interproximal contact between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth;Koori;Int J Prosthodont.,2010
3. Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A clinical report;Wat;J Prosthet Dent.,2011
4. Frequency of infraposition and missing contact points in implant-supported restorations within natural dentitions over time: A systematic review with meta-analysis;Papageorgiou;Clin Oral Implants Res.,2018
5. Adult growth, aging, and the single-tooth implant;Oesterle;International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants.,2000
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献