The Influence of the Crown-implant Ratio on the Crestal Bone Level and Implant Secondary Stability

Jakub Hadzik

Status: Completed

Conditions: Tooth Loss; Partial Edentulism

Treatments: Other: Regular implants Treatment; Other: Short implants Treatment

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other; Industry

Identifiers

NCT03471000

crown-implant ratio

Details and patient eligibility

About

The aim of the study was to determine whether implant length and the crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio influence implant stability and the loss of the surrounding marginal bone, and whether short implants can be used instead of sinus augmentation procedures.

Full description

The patients participating in the study (n=30) had one single tooth implant - a short (OsseoSpeed™ L6Ø4 mm, Implants) or a regular implant (OsseoSpeed™ L11 and L13Ø4 mm, DENTSPLY Implants) - placed in the maxilla. The evaluation was based on clinical and radiological examination.

The crown-to-implant ratio was determined by dividing the length of the crown together with the abutment by the length of the implant placed crestally. Mean crown-to-implant ratios were calculated separately for each group and its correlation with the MBL (marginal bone loss) and stability was assessed. The authors compared the correlation between the C/I ratio values, MBL and secondary implant stability.

Enrollment: 30 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18+ years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Non-smoking patients with no systemic or local diseases were qualified.

Additional inclusion criteria were as follows:

• minimal apicocoronal height of the alveolar ridge of 6 mm in the region of the implant insertion in the pre-surgical qualification
• minimal width of the alveolar ridge of 6-7 mm in the region of interest
• HKT (height of the keratinized tissue) higher than 2 mm
• API ≤ 35 (Approximal Plaque Index)
• PI ≤ 25. (Plaque Index)
• Bone Type III or D2 were included in the study
• No graft procedures in the area of interest,

Exclusion criteria

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

30 participants in 2 patient groups

Short implants Treatment

Experimental group

Description:

Group 2 (G2; n=15 patients) had short implants (OsseoSpeed ™ L6mm Ø4 mm) \[DENTSPLY Implants, Waltham, MA, USA\] placed without sinus lift and augmentation procedure.

Treatment:

Other: Short implants Treatment

Regular Implants Treatment

Active Comparator group

Description:

Group 1 (G1; n=15 patients) had conventional dental implants (OsseoSpeed ™ L11 Ø4 mm and L13 Ø4 mm) \[DENTSPLY Implants, Waltham, MA, USA\] placed, preceded by the sinus lift procedure from a lateral window approach with the application of the xenogeneic bone graft Geistlich Bio-Oss® \[Geistlich AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland\]. The lateral window approach sinus lift surgery was performed 6 weeks prior to the implant placement by the same surgeon.

Treatment:

Other: Regular implants Treatment