The Influence of Crown-to-Implant Ratio on Short Implant Marginal Bone Loss

The influence of crown‐to‐implant ratio on marginal bone levels around splinted short dental implants: A radiological and clincial short term analysis

“…According to the results of this study CIR has a high impact on early peri‐implant bone loss as an increase of CIR is associated with higher MBL. However, studies exist that do not support these findings . Garaicoa‐Pazmino et al state that within the range of 0.6‐2.36 the higher the CIR, the less the peri‐implant MBL .…”

“…However, studies exist that do not support these findings. 21,30,[39][40][41] Garaicoa-Pazmino et al state that within the range of 0.6-2.36 the higher the CIR, the less the peri-implant MBL. 41 In addition, it is reported that an increased CIR may not be a risk factor for dental implant failure under appropriate plaque control.…”

Do short implants have similar survival rates compared to standard implants in posterior single crown?: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Recent studies have shown that there is no relationship between the highest crown-to-implant ratio and the highest MBL. 20,75,76 Studies that evaluated short and standard implants in splinted prosthesis with a 5-year follow-up time presented mean MBL in short implants ranging from 0.41 to 2.97 mm compared to the mean MBL for standard implants, which ranged from 0.71 to 3.01 mm. [77][78][79] Even the short implant having a higher crown-to-implant ratio, it did not present more MBL.…”

Short vs. Standard Laser‐Microgrooved Implants Supporting Single and Splinted Crowns: A Prospective Study with 3 Years Follow‐Up

“…Few findings have been reported in recent literature on MBL around short implants. 7,[35][36][37][38][39] Reported results of MBL around short implants do not exceed the criteria accepted for standard implants (i.e., 1.5 mm for the first year and 0.2 mm of additional bone loss each subsequent year). It should be noted that 3 years after loading, almost 2 mm of bone loss around a 6.5 mm implant corresponds to nearly one third of the entire implant length and should be interpreted differently on clinical grounds.…”