Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41531572
The Clinical Impact of Dental Implant Placement in Close Proximity to Natural Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Joshi Nilesh V, Rao Prajakta, Talreja Prakash, et al. · Cureus · 2025 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.99077
Findings
Population Patients with dental implants placed to replace missing teeth in either jaw
7 findings
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Marginal bone loss and peri-implantitis Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up | no estimate extracted Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency 4 studies |
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up | Proportion 0.12 [0.05, 0.22] Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency 8 studies · 1898 participants |
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Implants showing any proximity-related clinical or radiographic alteration Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up | Proportion (text-reported) 0.58 [0.55, 0.62] Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency Studies not reported |
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Caries and structural damage of adjacent teeth Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up | no estimate extracted Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias 3 studies |
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Pulpal and periapical pathology in adjacent teeth Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up | no estimate extracted Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency 5 studies |
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Implant survival in close proximity to teeth Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up | no estimate extracted High 4 studies |
| Implants placed within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) Follow-up 6 to 75 months · Dental implant surgery and follow-up Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | Effect size (as reported) 0.11 [0.03, 0.22] Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency Studies not reported |
Included primary studies 11
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clark 2017 Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross‐sectional study DOI:10.1111/cid.12511 | 2017 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Davarpanah 2009 Unconventional implant treatment: I. Implant placement in contact with ankylosed root fragments. A series of five case reports DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01653.x | 2009 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Hamdoon 2021 The consequences and outcomes associated with dental implants encroaching on adjacent teeth DOI:10.1111/cid.13047 | 2021 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Kucukkurt 2022 Survival Rates of Implants That Have Compromised the Adjacent Teeth and the Associated Complications: An Opg Retrospective Study DOI:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-20-00263 | 2022 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Margelos 1995 Irreversible pulpal damage of teeth adjacent to recently placed osseointegrated implants DOI:10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81533-5 | 1995 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ng 2018 Peri‐implant inflammation and marginal bone level changes around dental implants in relation to proximity with and bone level of adjacent… DOI:10.1111/adj.12650 | 2018 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Smith 2020 Influence of Implant-Tooth Proximity on Incidence of Caries in Teeth Adjacent to Implants in Molar Sites: A Retrospective Radiographic… PMID:31904245 | 2020 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Tagger-Green 2023 Effect of posterior implant restorations on adjacent teeth and tissues: A case–control study DOI:10.1111/cid.13207 | 2023 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Tasharoie 2015 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Yi 2021 Long term clinical result of implant induced injury on the adjacent tooth DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-87062-9 | 2021 | this review only | Any proximity-related clinical or radiographic complication (composite) | not extracted yet |
| Yoon 2013 Prognosis and evaluation of tooth damage caused by implant fixtures. PMID:24471033 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients who underwent dental implant placement for replacement of missing teeth in either jaw | Patients with implants close to natural teeth (n=1,727 participants; over 2,000 implants) |
| Intervention | Implants positioned within 1.5 mm of an adjacent natural tooth or in direct contact with the root surface | Implants less than 1.5 mm from adjacent roots or in direct contact (n=11 studies) |
| Comparison | Implants placed at or beyond the recommended 1.5 mm distance | No eligible comparison group in most studies; pooled proportions only |
| Outcomes | Adjacent tooth damage, peri-implant bone changes, implant failure; pulpal or periodontal complications and endodontic intervention | Pulpal or periapical pathology (n=5), marginal bone loss or peri-implantitis (n=4), caries or structural damage (n=3), implant survival (n=4), composite any proximity-related complication (n=8) |
| Study designs | Observational studies, case-control, cohort, cross-sectional studies and case series | 8 observational studies and 3 case series (n=11) |
| Timing | Not specified | Follow-up 3 to 75 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Partial Yes | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | yes |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |