Clinical study on the food impaction between implant prostheses and adjacent teeth

Dong-Wook Shin; Jin-Han Lee; Se-Yeon Kim; Jin-Keun Dong

doi:10.4047/jkap.2014.52.1.27

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.52(1) > 1034793

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Shin, Lee, Kim, and Dong: Clinical study on the food impaction between implant prostheses and adjacent teeth

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2014;52(1):27-33.

Published online: NaN January 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2014.52.1.27

Clinical study on the food impaction between implant prostheses and adjacent teeth

Dong-Wook Shin, Jin-Han Lee, Se-Yeon Kim, Jin-Keun Dong^∗

Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Jin-Keun Dong Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, 460 Iksandae-ro, Iksan, 570-749, Korea +82 63 850 6852: e-mail, dong@wonkwang.ac.kr

Received 9 December 201327 December 2013 Accepted 13 January 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the food impaction between implant prostheses and adjacent natural teeth.

Materials and methods

For this study, 51 patients with food impaction were selected and investigated mobility, tightness of contact area, gingival index, plaque index, attachment loss, alveolar bone level, proximal caries, marginal ridge distance and occlusal relationships.

Results

Food impaction was found in the upper teeth (60.7%) more than the lower teeth (39.2%). Food impaction was occurred on mesial side of implant prostheses (86.2%) more than distal side (13.7%). Food impaction was mostly found in loose or open contact area (94.2%). Food impaction was frequent on stepped relationship between implant and adjacent teeth.

Conclusion

Treatment plan should include proper adjacent and antagonistic occlusal plane and occlusal surface, to prevent food impaction, and the plan should include less adjacent tooth mobility with proper tightness between implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2014;52:27-33)

Keywords: Food impaction, Implant prosthesis

REFERENCES

1.Hirschfeld I. Food impaction. J Am Dent Assoc. 1930. 17:1504–28.

2.Takahashi T. Diagnosis of food impaction. Nihon Shika Ishikai Zasshi. 1980. 33:3–10.

3.Spielman AI., Bivona P., Rifkin BR. Halitosis. A common oral problem. N Y State Dent J. 1996. 62:36–42.

4.Diamond M. Dental Anatomy. New York, MacMillan Co.;1929.

5.Kraus BS., Jordan RE., Abrams LA. Dental Anatomy and Occlusion. Baltimore, The Williams and Wilkins Company;1969.

6.Kepic TJ., O'Leary TJ. Role of marginal ridge relationships as an etiologic factor in periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 1978. 49:570–5.

7.Prichard JE. Advanced Periodontal Disease/Surgical and Prosthetic Management. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders;1972.

8.Takei HH. The interdental space. Dent Clin North Am. 1980. 24:169–76.

9.Hancock EB., Mayo CV., Schwab RR., Wirthlin MR. Influence of interdental contacts on periodontal status. J Periodontol. 1980. 51:445–9.

10.Jernberg GR., Bakdash MB., Keenan KM. Relationship between proximal tooth open contacts and periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 1983. 54:529–33.

11.Tarnow DP., Magner AW., Fletcher P. The effect of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence or absence of the interproximal dental papilla. J Periodontol. 1992. 63:995–6.

12.Jung JH., Oh SC., Dong JK. A clinical study on the occurrence of food impaction. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2000. 38:50–8.

13.O'Leary TJ., Badell MC., Bloomer RS. Interproximal contact and marginal ridge relationships in periodontally healthy young males classified as to orthodontic status. J Periodontol. 1975. 46:6–9.

14.Korean Academy of Periodontology. Periodontology. Seoul, Goonja Publishing;2010.

15.O'Leary TJ., Gibson WA Jr., Shannon IL., Schuessler CF., Nabers CL. A screening examination for detection of gingival and periodontal breakdown and local irritants. Periodontics. 1963. 1:166–74.

16.Silness J., Löe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condtion. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964. 22:121–35.

17.Tibbetts LS Jr. Use of diagnostic probes for detection of periodontal disease. J Am Dent Assoc. 1969. 78:549–55.

18.Haffajee AD., Cugini MA., Dibart S., Smith C., Kent RL Jr., Socransky SS. Clinical and microbiological features of subjects with adult periodontitis who responded poorly to scaling and root planing. J Clin Periodontol. 1997. 24:767–76.

19.Rudd KD., O'Leary TJ., Stumpf AJ Jr. Horizontal tooth mobility in carefully screened subjects. Tech Doc Rep U S Air Force Syst Command Electron Syst Div. 1964 Feb. 94:1–6.

20.Wright EF. Elimination of a food impaction problem in the posterior maxillary region. J Prosthet Dent. 1993. 69:540–1.

Fig. 1.

Food impaction sites.

Table 1.

Criteria of oral examination

Score criteria
Criteria of tightness	T (tight contact) Definite resistance to the passage of floss
	L (loose contact) Minimal resistance
	O (open contact) No resistance
Criteria of mobility	0 No mobility or physiologic mobility
	1 Slight mobility; under 1 mm over physiologic mobility
	2 Moderate mobility; more than 1 mm
	3 Severe mobility and vertical mobility
Criteria of gingival index	0 Normal gingiva
	1 Mild inflammation, slight color change, little change in texture, no exudate or bleeding upon probing
	2 Moderate inflammatory change redness, edema, presence of a hemorrhagic exudate upon probing
	3 Severe inflammation, marked redness, edema, tend to spontaneous bleed, ulceration
Criteria of plaque index	0 No plaque present
	1 Slight plaque are not detected without probing
	2 Moderate plaque covering (No plaque within interdental space)
	3 Severe plaque accumulation (Plaque exist within interdental space)
Criteria of pocket depth	0 Pocket depth: under 2 mm
	1 Pocket depth: over 2 mm up to 3 mm
	2 Pocket depth: over 3 mm up to 5 mm
	3 Pocket depth: over 5 mm
Criteria of attachment loss	0 Presence of attachment gingiva
Criteria of attachment loss	1 Absence of attachment gingiva

Table 2.

Result of questionnaire on the food impaction after restoration

		N	Percentage
Onset	after setting	18	35.2
	within 6 mt.	10	19.6
	within 1 yr	5	9.8
	within 2 yrs.	3	5.8
	over 2 yrs.	15	29.4
A Kind of Food	Meat	23	29.8
(Multiple)	vegetable	27	35.0
	Gimchi	20	25.9
	The others	7	9.0
Pain	painful	11	21.5
Pain	painless	40	78.4
Remove easiness	easy	24	47.0
Remove easiness	difficult	27	52.9

Table 3.

Tightness of the contact point in the site with food impaction

		N	Percentage
Tightness	tight	3	5.80%
	loose	34	66.60%
	open	14	27.40%

Table 4.

Result of periodontal examination

		Mean
		Experimental group	Control group
Natural teeth	Mobility	0.79	0.71
	Gingival index	1.26	1.06
	Plaque index	1.14	0.92
	Pocket depth	1.97	2.10
	Attachment Loss	0.26	0.25
Implant prosthesis	Gingival index	1.16	1.21
	Plaque index	1.00	1.11
	Attachment Loss	0.44	0.51

Table 5.

Alveolar bone loss and existence of proximal caries (Periapical radiograph finding)

		N	Percentage
Alveolar bone loss	Yes	14	27.4
Alveolar bone loss	No	37	72.5
Proximal caries	Yes	0	0
Proximal caries	No	51	100

Table 6.

Occlusal relationship

	N	Percentage
Cusp-marginal ridge	32	62.7
Cusp-fossa	19	37.2

Table 7.

Stepped relationship

	N	Percentage
Stepped relationship	13	25.4

TOOLS

Similar articles