Evaluation of Effect of the Crown to Implant Ratio on Marginal Bone Level in Short Implants in the Posterior Area of the Mandible

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of oral, Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Tabriz Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral, Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

3 Dental Student, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

10.22122/jids.v21.i1.0036

Abstract



Introduction: Marginal bone loss is one of the biological complications associated with dental implants, and the crown-to-implant ratio (C/I-R) is considered a potential contributing factor. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of C/I-R on marginal bone loss (MBL) in short implants placed in the posterior mandible.
Materials  and Methods: In this descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study, 38 patients who received short implants in the mandible during 2022–2023 were evaluated. Marginal bone level was assessed using panoramic radiographs at implant placement and parallel periapical radiographs one year after prosthetic loading. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation, multiple linear regression, and t-tests at a significance level of 0.05.
Results: The mean marginal bone loss in implants with a C/I-R < 1.5 was 1.1 ± 1.14 mm, and in those with a C/I-R ≥ 1.5, it was 1.04 ± 0.63 mm. No statistically significant relationship was found between the crown-to-implant ratio and marginal bone loss (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: The crown-to-implant ratio does not have a significant effect on marginal bone loss in short implants placed in the posterior mandible.

Highlights

Arash Lamei: Google Scholar, PubMed

Behnam Zinhaghayegh: Google Scholar, PubMed

Khadijeh Pooyandeh: Google Scholar, PubMed

Keywords

References

  1. Mish CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby; 2008.
  2. Pardo-Zamora G, Ortiz-Ruíz AJ, Camacho-Alonso F, Martínez-Marco JF, Molina-González JM, Piqué-Clusella N, et al. Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm) versus Standard Dental Implants (≥10 mm): A One-Year Post-Loading Prospective Observational Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(11): 5683.
  3. Carranza FA, Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR. Carranza’s clinical periodontology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2002.
  4. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15(1): 15-46.
  5. Wu H, Shi Q, Huang Y, Chang P, Huo N, Jiang Y, et al. Failure risk of short dental implants under immediate loading: a meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2021; 30(7): 569-80.
  6. Annibali S, Cristalli MP, Dell'Aquila D, Bignozzi I, La Monaca G, Pilloni A. Short dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012; 91(1): 25-32.
  7. Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonça MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016; 47: 8-17.
  8. English CE. Biomechanical concerns with fixed partial dentures involving implants. Implant Dent 1993; 2(4): 221-42. 
  9. Weinberg LA. Reduction of implant loading using a modified centric occlusal anatomy. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11(1): 55–69.
  10. Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59(1): 59–63.
  11. Shackleton JL, Carr L, Slabbert JC, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71(1): 23-6.
  12. Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13(2): 162-8.
  13. Nunes M, Almeida RF, Felino AC, Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M. The influence of crown-to-implant ratio on short implant marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 31(5): 1156-63.
  14. Hingsammer L, Watzek G, Pommer B. The influence of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone levels around splinted short dental implants: A radiological and clincial short term analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19(6): 1090-8.
  15. Chen Z, Li W, Li P. Effects of crown-to-implant ratio on marginal bone level and bone density in non-splinted single implants: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23(1): 298.
  16. Rahim MA, Khan K, Chrcanovic BR. Influence of Crown-Implant Ratio and Implant Inclination on Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Region: A Retrospective Clinical Study. J Clin Med 2023; 12(9): 3219
  17. Stoichkov B, Kirov D. Impact of crown-to-implant ratio of marginal bone loss around implant-supported single crowns: 5 years retrospective study. J Osseointegr 2020; 12(4): 706-10.
  18. Padhye NM, Lakha T, Naenni N, Kheur Effect of crown-to-implant ratio on the marginal bone level changes and implant survival – A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020; 10(4): 705–13.
  19. Sotto-Maior BS, Senna PM, da Silva WJ, Rocha EP, Del Bel Cury AA. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio, retention system, restorative material, and occlusal loading on stress concentrations in single short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27(3): e13-8.
  20. Güngِr H. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress concentration of fixed dental prosthesis in shortened dental arch concept. Dent Implants Dentures 2016; 1: 112.
  21. Robau-Porrua A, Pérez-Rodríguez Y, Soris-Rodríguez LM, Pérez-Acosta O, González JE. The effect of diameter, length and elastic modulus of a dental implant on stress and strain levels in peri-implant bone: A 3D finite element analysis. Biomed Mater Eng 2020; 30(5–6): 541–58.
  22. Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004; 74(1): 3–15.
  23. Chang M, Chronopoulos V, Mattheos N. Impact of excessive occlusal load on successfullyosseointegrated dental implants: a literature review. J Investig Clin Dent 2013; 4(3): 142–50.
  24. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lindhe J. Bone reactions to longstanding functional load at implants: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(9): 925–32.
  25. da Rocha Ferreira JJ,  MachadoLFM,  Oliveira JM, Ramos JCT. Effect of crown-to-implant ratio and crown height space on marginal bone stress: a finite element analysis. Int J Implant Dent 2021; 7(1): 81.
  26. Khoshhal M, Vafaei F, Sedigh S, Ghodrati A. Comparison of the Influence of Crown to Implant Ratio on Marginal Bone Loss around Implants in Posterior Areas of the Maxilla and Mandible [in Persian]. Avicenna J Clin Med 2016; 23(1): 5-16.
  27. Deporter D. Short dental implants: what works and what doesn't? A literature interpretation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013; 33(4): 457-64.
  28. Raviv E, Turcotte A, Harel-Raviv M. Short dental implants in reduced alveolar bone height. Quintessence Int 2010; 41(7): 575-9.
  29. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Sivolella S, Cavallin F, Katsoulis J, Monaco C, et al. Influence of Crown-to-Implant Ratio on Long-Term Marginal Bone Loss Around Short Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34(4): 992–8.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 21, Issue 1
Volume 21, Issue 1, April 2025
April 2025
Pages 36-44

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics