Scholarlink

Objectives <p>The primary objective of this study was to analyze the overall prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to implant-supported protheses (ISPs). Secondary objectives were to determine how different implant restoration placement options (direct to implant, intermediate abutment, or Ti-Base) and/or ISP location influence the occurrence of caries.</p> Materials and methods <p>This retrospective cohort study was performed at the University Clinic of Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC, Madrid, Spain), between January 2018 and December 2023, following strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Both single crowns and fixed partial dentures supported by implants were included. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the relevant variables. Associations between different groups (direct to implant, Ti-base, and intermediate abutment) were analyzed.</p> Results <p>The study evaluated 445 implant-supported protheses in 359 patients. The overall prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to ISPs at patient level was 8.9% (95% CI: 5.95% to 11.84%) and 8.1% (95% CI: 5.56% to 10.63%) at prothesis level. Prevalence was higher in the molar region (9.6%; 95% CI: 5.7% to 13.4%), followed by premolar sites (8.6%; 95% CI: 4.2% to 12.9%). The highest prevalence of caries was found in teeth adjacent to ISPs placed direct to implant (11.4%; 95% CI: 7.3% to 15.4%); followed by teeth adjacent to implants restored with Ti-Base (10.5%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 24.2%). Those teeth adjacent to implants restored using intermediate abutments had the lowest prevalence (3.7%; 95% CI: 1% to 6.3%). Statistically significant differences between restoration groups were observed (<i>p</i> = 0.013). Moreover, the odds of caries increased by 3.37 times in teeth adjacent to ISPs placed direct to implant compared with those restored with intermediate abutments.</p> Conclusions <p>The prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to ISPs is significantly higher in implants restored direct to implant compared with those restored with intermediate abutments.</p> Clinical relevance <p>Selecting the appropriate implant-supported restoration placement option may reduce caries in teeth adjacent to an ISP. Intermediate abutments would appear to reduce the risk of caries compared with direct implant restorations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to implant-supported prostheses and relationship with implant location and the manner of restoration placement: a retrospective cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月13日

查看全文
  • Pablo Lastra-Prados,
  • Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann,
  • Diego Gómez-Costa,
  • Luis Sánchez-Labrador,
  • Marta Hernández de Oliveira,
  • Jesús Rodríguez-Molinero,
  • Antonio Francisco López-Sánchez

摘要

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the overall prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to implant-supported protheses (ISPs). Secondary objectives were to determine how different implant restoration placement options (direct to implant, intermediate abutment, or Ti-Base) and/or ISP location influence the occurrence of caries.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study was performed at the University Clinic of Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC, Madrid, Spain), between January 2018 and December 2023, following strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Both single crowns and fixed partial dentures supported by implants were included. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the relevant variables. Associations between different groups (direct to implant, Ti-base, and intermediate abutment) were analyzed.

Results

The study evaluated 445 implant-supported protheses in 359 patients. The overall prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to ISPs at patient level was 8.9% (95% CI: 5.95% to 11.84%) and 8.1% (95% CI: 5.56% to 10.63%) at prothesis level. Prevalence was higher in the molar region (9.6%; 95% CI: 5.7% to 13.4%), followed by premolar sites (8.6%; 95% CI: 4.2% to 12.9%). The highest prevalence of caries was found in teeth adjacent to ISPs placed direct to implant (11.4%; 95% CI: 7.3% to 15.4%); followed by teeth adjacent to implants restored with Ti-Base (10.5%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 24.2%). Those teeth adjacent to implants restored using intermediate abutments had the lowest prevalence (3.7%; 95% CI: 1% to 6.3%). Statistically significant differences between restoration groups were observed (p = 0.013). Moreover, the odds of caries increased by 3.37 times in teeth adjacent to ISPs placed direct to implant compared with those restored with intermediate abutments.

Conclusions

The prevalence of caries in teeth adjacent to ISPs is significantly higher in implants restored direct to implant compared with those restored with intermediate abutments.

Clinical relevance

Selecting the appropriate implant-supported restoration placement option may reduce caries in teeth adjacent to an ISP. Intermediate abutments would appear to reduce the risk of caries compared with direct implant restorations.