Jarvie Journal - College of Dental Medicine - Columbia University

Volume 56, Spring 2013
Incidence of Interproximal Open Contact Related to Implant Placement
Posteriorly and Anteriorly
Spyridon Varthis 1 ; Dennis P. Tarnow 2 ; Anthony Randi 3 *
1
Postgraduate Prosthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University NY, NY
2
Implant Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University NY, NY
3
Division of Prosthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University NY, NY * Faculty Mentor
Introduction: The loss of Interproximal Contact between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent
teeth has recently been reported. This is significant since patients often complain of food
impaction. Chronic food impaction may lead to periodontal defects and recurrent decay. In order
to prevent implant-tooth periodontal sequelae and tooth decay, a new proximal contact may have
to be established between the prosthesis and adjacent tooth. Due to a lack of sufficient research
on this topic, it is important to determine the incidence of Interproximal Contact Loss (ICL) and
identify causative contributing factors. Upon completing the research, clinical guidelines may be
established to prevent Interproximal Contact Loss and proper informed consent.
Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of open contacts between single
implant prostheses and adjacent teeth.
Materials and Methods: Patients between the ages of 19 and 91, both male and female were
included in this pilot study. The period of evaluation after implant restoration insertion was
between 3 months and 11 years.
The participants were seen at random intervals in order to identify Interproximal Contact Loss.
The interproximal contacts were evaluated by using dental floss. Contact was considered open if
floss passed without resistance from adjacent teeth. ICL was also confirmed visually.
Results: Overall ICL was 48%. 77% were on the mesial surfaces and 23% on the distal. ICL
was noted 44% in the maxilla and 56% in the mandible . The posterior region was affected 89%
versus 11% in the anterior region. Among the incidents of ICL a significant percentage of 47%,
presented food impaction and almost 42% of the patients were aware of the ICL.
Discussion: The ICL rate was 48%. The mesial drifting caused by the interproximal wear of
natural teeth, mesial migration, occlusion and parafunctional habits are possible causative factors
of ICL
Conclusions: 48% of implant restorations demonstrated ICL. This results dictates that ICL
should be included as an implant complication. The high incidence of ICL is justification for
proper informed consent. The high incidence of ICL and associated clinical problems need to be
addressed. Further research is necessary to identify causative factors for ICL. The authors suggest
the use of an Essex retainer in order to prevent the IC loss between the implant restoration and
adjacent tooth. Evaluation of IC between the implant restoration and adjacent tooth should be
periodically monitored.
53