Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Design This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the risk and variables of tooth loss for teeth adjacent to dental implants compared to teeth nonadjacent to implants. The study followed the STROBE guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Cohort selection The study included patients treated with dental implants at UCSF School of Dentistry between 2000 and 2020. The inclusion criteria for teeth adjacent to implants required the implant to support a fixed prosthesis and a follow-up period of at least 12 months. Nonadjacent teeth also required a follow-up period of at least 12 months. Teeth were excluded if they had a hopeless prognosis or were planned for extraction before the completion of restorative treatment. Data analysis Data were extracted from electronic health records, including patient demographics, dental histories, and outcomes for teeth adjacent and nonadjacent to implants. Statistical analyses, including Kaplan-Meier survival plots, log-rank tests, and multivariate logistic regression, were used to compare tooth survival and identify aetiologies of tooth loss. Results The study included 787 patients, with 2048 teeth adjacent and 15,637 teeth nonadjacent to implants. The 10-year cumulative survival rate was 89.2% for teeth adjacent to implants and 99.3% for nonadjacent teeth. Teeth adjacent to implants had a significantly higher risk of tooth loss (Odds Ratio OR 13.15). The primary etiology of tooth loss adjacent to implants was root fracture (45.2%), followed by caries (28.9%), periodontitis (24.1%), and endodontic failure (1.8%). For nonadjacent teeth, periodontitis was the leading cause of tooth loss (51.9%). Conclusions The study found that teeth adjacent to dental implants had a significantly higher risk of tooth loss, primarily due to root fractures. The findings suggest that dental implants may act as an iatrogenic factor, increasing the risk of complications for adjacent teeth. Conservative management of natural dentition should be prioritized, with emphasis on stringent periodontal surveillance and effective home care. Future research should focus on prospective studies to further explore these associations and improve clinical outcomes.
Afrashtehfar et al. (Sat,) studied this question.