AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of crown-to-implant (CI) ratio as well as other surgical, prosthetic and biomechanical variables on marginal bone loss (MBL) and on the survival rates of implant-supported prostheses in short implants (≤8.5 mm in length) placed in posterior areas of maxilla and mandible. MATERIAL & METHODS: This was a retrospective study based on clinical charts and follow-up recordings from a single private practice over a period of 10 years. Patients rehabilitated in the posterior region of the jaws by means of prostheses supported by implants of ≤8.5 mm length were included. Patients-related, surgery-related. and implant-related variables, as well as other prosthetic and biomechanical variables. were registered. The data were split into two groups according to the value of CI ratio (CI < 2 and CI ≥ 2). MBL was measured from radiographs using an image analysis software. Implant and prosthesis survival rates were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight short implants placed in 63 patients were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 21.88 months (standard deviation (SD): 22.9, range 7-113 months). Eighty-six implants (67.2%) had a CI ratio of <2, whereas it was ≥2 in 42 implants (32.8%). The mean value of CI ratio was 1.82 (SD: 0.42; range 1.04-3.31). The average MBL after 1 year of follow-up was 0.35 (SD: 0.50), and it was 0.45 (SD: 0.46) mm for subsequent evaluations. Survival rates of implants and prosthesis were 100%. The presence of a cantilever had a negative influence on the first year MBL (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The CI ratio had not a significant influence on MBL in Biotechnology Institute (BTI; Vitoria, Spain) short implants humidified with PRGF-Endoret and placed in posterior areas. The only variable that showed a significant negative influence on first year postloading MBL was the use of cantilever for rehabilitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anitua et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: