Affiliations: [a] Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [b] Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [c] Department of Dentistry, Government Medical College, Ratlam, India | [d] Department of Prosthodontics, YCMM RDF’s Dental College, Ahmednagar, India
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Anuj Kishor Shukla, Department of Dentistry, Government Medical College, Ratlam, India. E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The prime concern of an implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) is to maintain an optimal proximal contact tightness, which further maintains arch integrity, improves masticatory effectiveness, and minimizes peri-implantitis. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the loss of proximal contact tightness between single tooth implant-supported prosthesis and the adjacent natural teeth. METHODS: Forty patients treated by a single mandibular first molar ISP, aged between 18–50 years were selected. All were randomly allocated in Group I and Group II. Group I, 20 subjects who have received ISP without an insertion of Essix retainer, and Group II patients received an insertion with Essix retainer. The groups were subdivided into Subgroup A, B, and Subgroup C, D, in which A and C are control groups. To measure the tightness at proximal contact points, a digital force analyzer was used. Proximal contact tightness (PCT) was measured immediately after the placement of the prosthesis, 3 months, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up respectively, and the PCT values at end of 1 year were statistically evaluated. Statistical analysis was done, mean and standard deviation was calculated by independent sample t-test wit p< 0.05 as a statistically significant value. RESULTS: In Group I, towards the end of 1 year, 2.09 N (65.5%) and 1.50 N (53.1%) loss of PCT were found on mesial and distal contact areas respectively. In Group II, loss of PCT at mesial contact area was 0.87 N (28.9%) and at distal contact area was 1.77 N (53.3%), which is significantly less compared with the non-usage of Essix retainer (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: The usage of Essix retainer, PCT increases especially on the mesial contact area. The frequency of contact loss was decreased. Thus, to minimize the loss of proximal contact the usage of Essix retainer is recommended.
Keywords: Proximal contact loss, implant supported prosthesis (ISP), contact area, digital force analyzer
