Influence of Crown-to-implant Ratio on Periimplant Marginal Bone Loss in the Posterior Region: a Five-year Retrospective Study

Overview

Journal J Periodontal Implant Sci

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2013 Jan 25

PMID 23346467

Citations 9

Authors

Kyung-Jin Lee

Yong-Gun Kim

Jin-Woo Park

Jae-Mok Lee

Jo-Young Suh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio on the change in marginal bone level around the implant and to determine the site-related factors influencing the relationship between the C/I ratio and periimplant marginal bone loss.

Methods: A total of 259 implants from 175 patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of five years. Implants were divided into two groups according to their C/I ratios: ≤1, and >1. Site-related factors having an influence on the relationship between C/I ratio and periimplant marginal bone loss were analyzed according to the implant location, implant diameter, implant manufacturer, prosthesis type, and guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure.

Results: It was found that 1) implants with a C/I ratio below 1 exhibited greater periimplant marginal bone loss than implants with a C/I ratio more than 1, 2) site-related factors had an effect on periimplant marginal bone loss, except for the implant system used, 3) the C/I ratio was the factor having more dominant influence on periimplant marginal bone loss, compared with implant diameter, prosthesis type, implant location, and GBR procedure, 4) implants with a C/I ratio below 1 showed greater periimplant marginal bone loss than implants with a C/I ratio greater than 1 in the maxilla, but not in the mandible, 5) and periimplant marginal bone loss was more affected by the implant system than the C/I ratio.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, implants with a higher C/I ratio exhibited less marginal bone loss than implants with a lower C/I ratio in the posterior regions. The C/I ratio was a more dominant factor affecting periimplant marginal bone loss in the maxilla than the mandible. Meanwhile, the implant system was a more dominant factor influencing periimplant marginal bone loss than the C/I ratio.

Citing Articles

A Retrospective Analysis of the Influence of Crown-to-Implant Ratio on Marginal Bone Loss.

Alhussainan N, AlMugeiren O J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025; 16(Suppl 4):S3880-S3882.

PMID: 39927016 PMC: 11805311. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1345_24.

Influence of Crown Height and Width on Marginal Bone Loss and Long-Term Stability of Dental Implants: A Systematic Review.

Jain R, Pisulkar S, Dubey S, Bansod A, Beri A, Deshmukh S Cureus. 2024; 16(7):e65109.

PMID: 39171029 PMC: 11338648. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.65109.

Survival Rates of Short Dental Implants (≤6 mm) Used as an Alternative to Longer (>6 mm) Implants for the Rehabilitation of Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review of RCTs.

Emfietzoglou R, Dereka X Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(6).

PMID: 38920886 PMC: 11202938. DOI: 10.3390/dj12060185.

Clinical evaluation of 3.0-mm narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study with up to 5 years of observation.

Hwang I, Kim T, Cho Y J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2023; 54(1):44-52.

PMID: 37336522 PMC: 10901684. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2300820041.

Effectiveness of dental implantation with the partial split-flap technique on vertical guided bone regeneration: a retrospective study.

Cho Y, Kim S, Ku Y J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2021; 51(6):433-443.

PMID: 34965622 PMC: 8718335. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2103780189.

References

Misch C, Qu Z, Bidez M . Mechanical properties of trabecular bone in the human mandible: implications for dental implant treatment planning and surgical placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57(6):700-6; discussion 706-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90437-8. View

Tawil G, AbouJaoude N, Younan R . Influence of prosthetic parameters on the survival and complication rates of short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(2):275-82. View

Akca K, Cehreli M . Biomechanical consequences of progressive marginal bone loss around oral implants: a finite element stress analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006; 44(7):527-35. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-006-0072-y. View

Laurell L, Lundgren D, Falk H, Hugoson A . Long-term prognosis of extensive polyunit cantilevered fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66(4):545-52. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90521-w. View

Yi S, Ericsson I, Carlsson G, Wennstrom J . Long-term follow-up of cross-arch fixed partial dentures in patients with advanced periodontal destruction. Evaluation of the supporting tissues. Acta Odontol Scand. 1995; 53(4):242-8. DOI: 10.3109/00016359509005980. View

Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G . Brånemark single tooth implants: a preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 73(3):274-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80205-7. View

Glantz P, Nilner K . Biomechanical aspects of prosthetic implant-borne reconstructions. Periodontol 2000. 1999; 17:119-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00129.x. View

UPDEGRAVE W . Right-angle dental radiography. Dent Clin North Am. 1968; :571-9. View

Grossmann Y, Sadan A . The prosthodontic concept of crown-to-root ratio: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(6):559-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.006. View

10.

Rokni S, Todescan R, Watson P, Pharoah M, Adegbembo A, Deporter D . An assessment of crown-to-root ratios with short sintered porous-surfaced implants supporting prostheses in partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(1):69-76. View

11.

Nyman S, Ericsson I . The capacity of reduced periodontal tissues to support fixed bridgework. J Clin Periodontol. 1982; 9(5):409-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1982.tb02053.x. View

12.

Pilliar R, Cameron H, Binnington A, SZIVEK J, Macnab I . Bone ingrowth and stress shielding with a porous surface coated fracture fixation plate. J Biomed Mater Res. 1979; 13(5):799-810. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820130510. View

13.

Schulte J, Flores A, Weed M . Crown-to-implant ratios of single tooth implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98(1):1-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60031-6. View

14.

Urdaneta R, Rodriguez S, McNeil D, Weed M, Chuang S . The effect of increased crown-to-implant ratio on single-tooth locking-taper implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25(4):729-43. View

15.

Verhoeven J, Cune M, de Putter C . Reliability of some clinical parameters of evaluation in implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil. 2000; 27(3):211-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00524.x. View

16.

Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T . Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20 Suppl 4:207-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01783.x. View

17.

Blanes R, Bernard J, Blanes Z, Belser U . A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. II: Influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18(6):707-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01307.x. View

18.

Brose M, Avers R, Rieger M, DUCKWORTH J . Submerged alumina dental root implants in humans: five-year evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 61(5):594-601. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90283-7. View

19.

Aalam A, Nowzari H . Clinical evaluation of dental implants with surfaces roughened by anodic oxidation, dual acid-etched implants, and machined implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(5):793-8. View

20.

Nasr H, Meffert R . A proposed radiographic index for assessment of the current status of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993; 8(3):323-8. View