Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on periimplant marginal bone loss in the posterior region: a five-year retrospective study

  • Lee, Kyung-Jin (Department of Periodontology, Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Yong-Gun (Department of Periodontology, Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Park, Jin-Woo (Department of Periodontology, Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Mok (Department of Periodontology, Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Suh, Jo-Young (Department of Periodontology, Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2012.10.31
  • Accepted : 2012.11.18
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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: ${\leq}$ 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Grossmann Y, Sadan A. The prosthodontic concept of crown-to-root ratio: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:559-62.
  2. Dykema RW. Diagnosis and Treatment Planning. In: Johnston JF, Dykema LW, Goodacre CJ, Phillips RW. Johnston's modern practice in fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1986. p.8-21.
  3. Shillingburg HT Jr. Treatment Planning for the Replacement of Missing Teeth. In: Shillingburg HT Jr, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p.89-90.
  4. Nyman S, Ericsson I. The capacity of reduced periodontal tissues to support fixed bridgework. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9:409-14.
  5. Laurell L, Lundgren D, Falk H, Hugoson A. Long-term prognosis of extensive polyunit cantilevered fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:545-52.
  6. Yi SW, Ericsson I, Carlsson GE, Wennström JL. 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;53:242-8.
  7. Bidez MW, Misch CE. Clinical Biomechanics in Implant Dentistry. In: Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p.543-55.
  8. Brose MO, Avers RJ, Rieger MR, Duckworth JE. Submerged alumina dental root implants in humans: five-year evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:594-601.
  9. Nasr HF, Meffert RM. A proposed radiographic index for assessment of the current status of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:323-8.
  10. Haas R, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Mailath G, Watzek G. Branemark single tooth implants: a preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:274-9.
  11. Glantz PO, Nilner K. Biomechanical aspects of prosthetic implant-borne reconstructions. Periodontol 2000 1998; 17:119-24.
  12. Schulte J, Flores AM, Weed M. Crown-to-implant ratios of single tooth implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:1-5.
  13. Verhoeven JW, Cune MS, de Putter C. Reliability of some clinical parameters of evaluation in implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:211-6.
  14. Updegrave WJ. Right-angle dental radiography. Dent Clin North Am 1968;12:571-9.
  15. Urdaneta RA, Rodriguez S, McNeil DC, Weed M, Chuang SK. The effect of increased crown-to-implant ratio on single-tooth locking-taper implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:729-43.
  16. Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:360-70.
  17. Pilliar RM, Cameron HU, Binnington AG, Szivek J, Macnab I. Bone ingrowth and stress shielding with a porous surface coated fracture fixation plate. J Biomed Mater Res 1979;13:799-810.
  18. Rokni S, Todescan R, Watson P, Pharoah M, Adegbembo AO, 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;20:69-76.
  19. Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, Belser UC. 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;18:707-14.
  20. Sekine H, Komiyama Y, Hotta H, Yoshida T. Mobility Characteristics and Tactile Sensitivity of Osseointegrated Implant-Supporting Systems. In: Van Steenberghe D. Tissue integration in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1986. p.326-39.
  21. Misch CE, Qu Z, Bidez MW. Mechanical properties of trabecular bone in the human mandible: implications for dental implant treatment planning and surgical placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:700-6.
  22. Akca K, Cehreli MC. Biomechanical consequences of progressive marginal bone loss around oral implants: a finite element stress analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 2006;44: 527-35.
  23. Aalam AA, 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;20:793-8.
  24. 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.
  25. 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;21:275-82.

Cited by

  1. Kurze Implantate : Ersetzen sie die Rekonstruktion des Alveolarfortsatzes? vol.6, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12285-012-0337-4
  2. Influence of Crown/Implant Ratio on Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review vol.85, pp.9, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2014.130615
  3. Factors affecting peri‐implant bone loss: a post‐five‐year retrospective study vol.26, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12416
  4. Risk Factors Associated With Implant Marginal Bone Loss : A Retrospective 6-Year Follow-Up Study vol.25, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000366
  5. Cumulative Success Rate of Short and Ultrashort Implants Supporting Single Crowns in the Posterior Maxilla: A 3-Year Retrospective Study vol.2017, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8434281
  6. Guided bone regeneration using K-incision technique vol.48, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2018.48.3.193
  7. Association of prosthetic features and peri‐implantitis: A cross‐sectional study vol.47, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13251
  8. Multivariate analysis of the influence of prosthodontic factors on peri‐implant bleeding index and marginal bone level in a molar site: A cross‐sectional study vol.22, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12953
  9. Mechano‐adaptive Responses of Alveolar Bone to Implant Hyper‐loading in a pre‐clinical in vivo model vol.31, pp.12, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13662
  10. Effectiveness of dental implantation with the partial split-flap technique on vertical guided bone regeneration: a retrospective study vol.51, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2103780189
  11. Effect of crown-to-implant ratio and crown height space on marginal bone stress: a finite element analysis vol.7, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00368-1