Effect of difference in occlusal contact area of mandibular free-end edentulous area implants on periodontal mechanosensitive threshold of adjacent premolars

• Published in: SpringerPlus Vol. 4; no. 1; p. 703
• Main Authors: Terauchi, Rie, Arai, Korenori, Tanaka, Masahiro, Kawazoe, Takayoshi, Baba, Shunsuke
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 17.11.2015; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Humanities and Social Sciences; Medicine; multidisciplinary; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Implant; Periodontal mechanosensitive threshold; Occlusal contact
• ISSN: 2193-1801; 2193-1801
• DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1497-2

Implant treatment is believed to cause minimal invasion of remaining teeth. However, few studies have examined teeth adjacent to an implant region. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of occlusal contact size of implants on the periodontal mechanosensitive threshold of adjacent premolars. A cross-sectional study design was adopted. The Department of Oral Implantology, Osaka Dental University, was the setting where patients underwent implant treatment in the mandibular free-end edentulous area. The study population comprised of 87 patients (109 teeth) who underwent follow-up observation for at least 3 years following implant superstructure placement. As variables, age, sex, duration following superstructure placement, presence or absence of dental pulp, occlusal contact area, and periodontal mechanosensitive threshold were considered. The occlusal contact area was measured using Blue Silicone ® and Bite Eye BE-I ® . Periodontal mechanosensitive threshold were measured using von Frey hair. As quantitative variables for periodontal mechanosensitive threshold, we divided subjects into two groups: normal (≤5 g) and high (≥5.1 g). For statistical analysis, we compared the two groups for the sensation thresholds using the Chi square test for categorical data and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous volume data. For variables in which a significant difference was noted, we calculated the odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) and the effective dose. There were 93 teeth in the normal group and 16 teeth in the high group based on periodontal mechanosensitive threshold. Comparison of the two groups indicated no significant differences associated with age, sex, duration following superstructure placement, or presence or absence of dental pulp. A significant difference was noted with regard to occlusal contact area, with several high group subjects belonging to the small contact group (odds ratio: 4.75 [1.42–15.87]; effective dose: 0.29). The results of this study suggest an association between implant occlusal contact area and the periodontal mechanosensitive threshold of adjacent premolars. Smaller occlusal contact application resulted in an increased threshold. It appears that prosthodontic treatment should aim not only to improve occlusal function but also to maintain oromandibular function with regard to the preservation of remaining teeth.