Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15522/jkaed.2022.31.2.47

Considerations for minimizing food impaction after implant prosthesis: Adjacent and antagonistic teeth  

Lee-Ra, Cho (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry / v.31, no.2, 2022 , pp. 47-55 More about this Journal
Abstract
Food impaction due to proximal space opening after implant restoration is a very common phenomenon in patients who have implant prosthesis. This occurs because the movement mechanism between the implant and the tooth is different, and it occurs about 30-60% over time. Contributing factors include the arch (mandible), region (posterior teeth), adjacent teeth (non-vital teeth), and antagonist teeth (natural teeth or implants), etc. While this phenomenon cannot be prevented, efforts should be made to minimize it. In order to have an ideal proximal contact as much as possible, the concave shape or the prominent lower proximal shape should be modified to create a symmetrical proximal shape. with the buccal dentate in the upper third height should be adjusted. Other conditions should be modified so that the heights of the marginal ridges are similar. Since an irregular occlusal plane is a cause of poor prognosis, food impaction should be minimized by restoring the ideal occlusal plane by correcting the extruded antagonist and reduction of the disto-buccal cusp.
Keywords
Food impaction; Adjacent teeth; Antagonist; Proximal shape; Occlusion;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 6  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Craddock HL, Youngson CC, Manogue M, Blance A. Occlusal changes following posterior tooth loss in adults. Part 1: a study of clinical parameters associated with the extent and type of supraeruption in unopposed posterior teeth. J Prosthodont. 2007;16:485-494.   DOI
2 Craddock HL, Youngson CC, Manogue M, Blance A. Occlusal changes following posterior tooth loss in adults. Part 2. Clinical parameters associated with movement of teeth adjacent to the site of posterior tooth loss. J Prosthodont. 2007 ;16:495-501.   DOI
3 Craddock HL. Occlusal changes following posterior tooth loss in adults. Part 3. A study of clinical parameters associated with the presence of occlusal interferences following posterior tooth loss. J Prosthodont. 2008;17:25-30.
4 조리라. 임플란트 보철물의 식편압입: 교합적 원인분석과 대처. 대한치과의사협회지. 2014;52:491-505.   DOI
5 Mehanna S, Habre-Hallage P. Proximal contact alterations between implant- supported restorations and adjacent teeth in the posterior region: A 3-month prospective study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13:e479-86.   DOI
6 Jemt T, Ahlberg G, Henriksson K, Bondevik O. Tooth movements adjacent to single-implant restorations after more than 15 years of follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20:626-32.
7 Wei H, Tomotake Y, Nagao K, Ichikawa T. Implant prostheses and adjacent tooth migration: preliminary retrospective survey using 3-dimensional occlusal analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21:302-4.
8 Koori H, Morimoto K, Tsukiyama Y, Koyano K. Statistical analysis of the diachronic loss of interproximal contact between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:535.40.
9 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 Jun;26:709-14.   DOI
10 Varthis S, Randi A, Tarnow D. Prevalence of interproximal open contacts between single-implant restorations and adjacent teeth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:1089.92.
11 Pang NS, Suh CS, Kim KD, Park W, Jung BY. Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors: a 7-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1501-8.   DOI
12 Manicone PF, De Angelis P, Rella E, Papetti L, D'Addona A. Proximal Contact Loss in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence. J Prosthodont. 2022;31:201-9.   DOI
13 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;34:165-8.   DOI
14 Oh WS, Oh J, Valcanaia AJ. Open proximal contact with implant-supported fixed prostheses compared with tooth-supported fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;30:e99-108.
15 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. 2021:S0022-3913(21)00333-4.
16 Shin DW, Lee JH, Kim SY, Dong JK. Clinical study on the food impaction between implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2014;52:27-33.   DOI
17 Moon S, Kim G, Cho S, Song J, Kim HJ. Effect of open proximal contact on adjacent tooth and implant. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2022. 38:9.17.
18 Lee JH, Kweon HH, Choi SH, et al. Association between dental implants in the posterior region and traumatic occlusion in the adjacent premolars: a long-term follow-up clinical and radiographic analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016; 46: 396-404   DOI
19 Hirschfeld I. Food impaction. J Am Dent Assoc. 1930. 17:1504.28.
20 조리라, 박찬진. 손에 잡히는 국소의치: 가철성 보철. 2021. (주)예낭아이엔씨. pp177-80.
21 Wright EF. Elimination of a food impaction problem in the posterior maxillary region. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69:540-1.   DOI