Prevalence of Interproximal Contact Loss Between Freestanding Single Implant Supported Crowns and Adjacent Teeth: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate clinical and radiographic changes in the interproximal area between single-unit implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth, and to assess their relationship with periodontal and peri-implant tissue health. Materials and Methods: A total of 22 single-unit implants placed in 18 patients (mean age 52.38 ± 8.78 years) were followed for up to 24 months. During recall appointments, periodontal and peri-implant clinical parameters, radiographic findings, adjacent tooth vitality, opposing dentition status, and patient-reported food impaction were comprehensively recorded. Results: Interproximal contact loss (ICL) was detected in 68.2% of restorations, with mesial (36.4%) and distal (40.9%) contact loss observed. Additionally, contact loss affected both surfaces in 9.1% of cases. Among the 15 implants with ICL, 9 (60.0%) were associated with patient-reported food impaction. ICL prevalence was notably higher in females (86.7%) compared to males (28.6%). Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 53.3% of implants exhibiting contact loss, whereas no peri-implantitis was detected. Conclusion: ICL between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth is a frequent finding often associated with food impaction and peri-implant mucosal inflammation. Therefore, regular clinical and radiographic evaluation of interproximal contacts is essential for maintaining peri-implant tissue health and ensuring long-term restorative success.

Keywords

• Implant-supported restoration
• interproximal contact loss
• food impaction
• peri-implant mucositis

Prevalence of Interproximal Contact Loss Between Freestanding Single Implant Supported Crowns and Adjacent Teeth: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Amaç: Bu retrospektif çalışmanın amacı, implant destekli restorasyonlar ile komşu doğal dişler arasındaki interproksimal mesafenin değişiminin klinik ve radyografik olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Periodontoloji Ana Bilim Dalında 2023-2025 yılları arasında implant tedavisi uygulanmış ve protetik restorasyonu tamamlandıktan sonra 3-24 ay arasında takip süresi bulunan ve kontrol seanslarında mezial-distal kontak uyumlarına ilişkin verileri kaydedilen 18 hastanın (12’si kadın, 6’sı erkek; yaş: 52,38 ± 8,78) toplam 22 implantı dahil edilmiştir. İmplantların 18’i molar 4’ü premolar bölgesine uygulanmıştır. Hastalara ait periodontal ve peri-implant klinik parametreler, radyografik bulgular, gıda sıkışması şikâyeti, implantın lokasyonu, implant komşuluğundaki doğal dişlerin vitalitesi, parafonksiyonel alışkanlıklar, komşu dişte restorasyon varlığı, karşıt arkta yer alan doğal dişin durumu ve implantın fonksiyon süresi gibi parametreler kaydedilmiştir. Bulgular: İmplant destekli restorasyonların %68,2’sinde en az bir yönde (mezial veya distal) kontak kaybı saptanmıştır. Yalnızca mezial yüzeylerde kontak kaybı görülme oranı %36,4 iken, distal yüzeylerde bu oran %40,9’dur. İmplantların %9,1’inde ise her iki yüzeyde de kontak kaybı gözlenmiştir. Hastalar kontak kaybı bulunan 15 implantın 9’unda (%60,0) gıda sıkışması şikâyeti bildirmiştir. Kadın hastalarda kontak kaybı oranı %86,7 iken erkeklerde %28,6’dır. İnterproksimal kontak kaybı görülen toplam 15 implantın 8’inde peri-implant mukozitis saptanmıştır (%53,3). Sonuç: İmplant destekli restorasyonlar ile komşu doğal dişler arasında zamanla interproksimal kontak kaybı meydana gelebilir. Kontak kaybı hastalarda gıda sıkışması şikayetine, periodontal ve peri-implant doku enflamasyonuna neden olabilir. Bu nedenle, implant destekli restorasyonların komşu dişlerle olan kontak ilişkilerinin düzenli klinik ve radyografik kontrollerle değerlendirilmesi, peri-implant doku sağlığının korunması açısından önem taşımaktadır

Keywords

• İmplant destekli restorasyon
• interproksimal kontak kaybı
• gıda sıkışması
• peri-implant mukozitis

References

1. Brägger U, Aeschlimann S, Bürgin W, Hämmerle CHF, Lang NP. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(1):26-34.
2. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):121-132.
3. Byun SJ, Heo SM, Ahn SG, Chang M. Analysis of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and adjacent teeth in relation to influential factors and effects. A cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(6):709-714.
4. Pappous GC, Campbell S, Goldstein G. Risk factors contributing to interproximal contact loss between an implant crown and a natural tooth. J Prosthodont 2026 Apr;35(4):443-449.
5. Liu CLS, Wen SC, Chang Chien CJ, Du JK. The mesial–mesial/distal–distal (MM-DD) occlusal adjustment technique: A 2–21.5-year retrospective study on preventing open contacts in posterior implant restorations. J Dent Sci 2025;20(4):2163-2175.
6. Bento VAA, Gomes JML, Lemos CAA, Limirio JPJO, Rosa CDDRD, Pellizzer EP. Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129(3):404-412.
7. Cui X, Zhang C, Li Y, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent teeth in posterior dentitions: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2025;25(1):1445.
8. Steven Liu CL, Wen SC, Chang Chien CJ, Du JK. Open contacts adjacent to posterior dental implants: Current understanding and emerging preventive concepts. J Dent Sci 2026;21(1):9-18.

9. Manicone PF, De Angelis P, Rella E, Papetti L, D'Addona A, D'Arcangelo C. Proximal contact loss in implant-supported restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Journal of Prosthodontics 2022;31(3):201-209.
10. Bompolaki D, Edmondson SA, Katancik JA. Interproximal contact loss between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 83 restorations with an up to 10-year follow-up. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127(3):418-424.
11. Nery JC, Manarte-Monteiro P, Aragão L, Da Silva LP, Brandão GSP, Lemos BF. Clinical effects of interproximal contact loss between teeth and implant-supported prostheses: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Prosthesis 2024;6(4):825-840.
12. Tu Y, Zhao X, Zhao G, Ding Q, Sun Y, Zhang L. Assessment of physiological posterior-tooth displacement under habitual occlusal force by intraoral scanning using implant-supported crowns as the reference. J Prosthet Dent 2025;133(5):1260-1267.
13. Chang M, Wennström JL. Peri‐implant soft tissue and bone crest alterations at fixed dental prostheses: a 3‐year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(5):527-534.
14. Shi JY, Zhu Y, Gu YX, Lai HC. Proximal contact alterations between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth in the posterior region: a 1-year preliminary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34(1):165-168.
15. Kandathilparambil MR, Nelluri VV, Vayadadi BC, Gajjam NK. Evaluation of biological changes at the proximal contacts between single-tooth implant-supported prosthesis and the adjacent natural teeth - An in vivo study. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2020;20(4):378-386.