The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth: A chart review. (19th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Duqum, Ibrahim; Barker, Sarah; Marshall, Elizabeth; Wang, Rujin; Preisser, John S.; Khan, Asma
• Is Part Of: Clinical implant dentistry and related research. Volume 20:Number 4(2018)
• Page Start: 479
• Page End: 482
• Publication Date: 2018-06-19
• Subjects: dental implants -- health and survival of teeth adjacent to dental implants -- retrospective analysis of dental implant restorations; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dental Implantation -- Periodicals; Dental Implants -- Periodicals; 617.693
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12626
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1523-0899

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To determine whether the placement and restoration of a single tooth posterior implant affects the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent natural teeth. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received single posterior tooth implants between August 2004 and July 2015 at the UNC SOD and met the study inclusion criteria. Preoperative and postoperative records were reviewed; survival and changes in coronal, pulpal, and periapical status of teeth adjacent to the implant and contralateral tooth were recorded. Dichotomous survival, restoration, and retreatment outcomes were analyzed using conditional logistic regression with patient as strata and implant versus control as the predictor. Exact odds ratio estimates and the 95% confidence intervals were obtained for the relationship of implant versus control side and outcomes. Results: Five hundred and fifty‐five sites with follow‐up time averaging 5 years ± 30.8 months were reviewed. Teeth adjacent to implants had 1.75 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.64) times the odds of restorative retreatments as compared to controls ( P = .005). On the implant side, 48 adjacent teeth (4.5%) were more heavily restored at follow up, while 84 (7.9%) experienced retreatment with comparable number of surfaces restored. On the contralateral side, 54 adjacent teeth (5.0%) were more heavily restored, and 56 (5.2%) experienced comparable levels of retreatment. In addition, 17 (1.7%) implant adjacent teeth required root canal treatment, compared to 12 (1.2%) on the contralateral side; 1 implant adjacent tooth required root canal retreatment. Forty‐two teeth (3.8%) adjacent to implants were lost, compared to 35 (3.2%) adjacent to natural teeth. Conclusions: The incidence for restorative retreatment was significantly higher on teeth adjacent to implant restorations as compared to the contralateral controls. There were no significant differences in the survival, morbidity, pulpal, or periapical health of teeth adjacent to single tooth implants compared to those adjacent to the contralateral natural tooth.