Cargando…

Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES: High crown‐to‐implant ratios may lead to complications due to unfavorable occlusal forces, including nonaxial forces, on the bone surrounding the neck of the implant and within the connection of the crown and implant itself. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meijer, Henny J. A., Boven, Carina, Delli, Konstantina, Raghoebar, Gerry M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13338
_version_ 1783368970676469760
author Meijer, Henny J. A.
Boven, Carina
Delli, Konstantina
Raghoebar, Gerry M.
author_facet Meijer, Henny J. A.
Boven, Carina
Delli, Konstantina
Raghoebar, Gerry M.
author_sort Meijer, Henny J. A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: High crown‐to‐implant ratios may lead to complications due to unfavorable occlusal forces, including nonaxial forces, on the bone surrounding the neck of the implant and within the connection of the crown and implant itself. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on the influence of crown‐to‐implant ratio of single‐tooth, nonsplinted, implants on biological and technical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE (1950–January 2018), EMBASE (1966–January 2018), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database (1800–January 2018) were searched to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: crown‐to‐implant ratio of single‐tooth, nonsplinted, implant‐supported restorations in the posterior maxilla or mandible and follow‐up of at least 1 year. Main outcome measures were as follows: implant survival rate, marginal bone level changes, biological complications, and technical complications. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles. A meta‐analysis was carried out for implant survival rate and peri‐implant bone changes. RESULTS: Of 154 primarily selected articles, eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Study groups presented a mean crown‐to‐implant ratio varying from 0.86 (with 10‐mm implants) to 2.14 (with 6‐mm implants). The meta‐analysis showed an implant survival of more than 99% per year and mean peri‐implant bone changes of <0.1 mm per year. Limited biological and technical complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Data reviewed in the current manuscript on crown‐to‐implant ratio, ranging from 0.86 to 2.14, of single‐tooth, nonsplinted, implants did not demonstrate a high occurrence of biological or technical complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6221159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62211592018-11-15 Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review Meijer, Henny J. A. Boven, Carina Delli, Konstantina Raghoebar, Gerry M. Clin Oral Implants Res The 5th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle OBJECTIVES: High crown‐to‐implant ratios may lead to complications due to unfavorable occlusal forces, including nonaxial forces, on the bone surrounding the neck of the implant and within the connection of the crown and implant itself. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on the influence of crown‐to‐implant ratio of single‐tooth, nonsplinted, implants on biological and technical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE (1950–January 2018), EMBASE (1966–January 2018), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database (1800–January 2018) were searched to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: crown‐to‐implant ratio of single‐tooth, nonsplinted, implant‐supported restorations in the posterior maxilla or mandible and follow‐up of at least 1 year. Main outcome measures were as follows: implant survival rate, marginal bone level changes, biological complications, and technical complications. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles. A meta‐analysis was carried out for implant survival rate and peri‐implant bone changes. RESULTS: Of 154 primarily selected articles, eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Study groups presented a mean crown‐to‐implant ratio varying from 0.86 (with 10‐mm implants) to 2.14 (with 6‐mm implants). The meta‐analysis showed an implant survival of more than 99% per year and mean peri‐implant bone changes of <0.1 mm per year. Limited biological and technical complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Data reviewed in the current manuscript on crown‐to‐implant ratio, ranging from 0.86 to 2.14, of single‐tooth, nonsplinted, implants did not demonstrate a high occurrence of biological or technical complications. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-10-10 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6221159/ /pubmed/30306696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13338 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle The 5th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
Meijer, Henny J. A.
Boven, Carina
Delli, Konstantina
Raghoebar, Gerry M.
Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review
title Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review
title_full Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review
title_fullStr Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review
title_short Is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review
title_sort is there an effect of crown‐to‐implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? a systematic review
topic The 5th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13338
work_keys_str_mv AT meijerhennyja isthereaneffectofcrowntoimplantratioonimplanttreatmentoutcomesasystematicreview
AT bovencarina isthereaneffectofcrowntoimplantratioonimplanttreatmentoutcomesasystematicreview
AT dellikonstantina isthereaneffectofcrowntoimplantratioonimplanttreatmentoutcomesasystematicreview
AT raghoebargerrym isthereaneffectofcrowntoimplantratioonimplanttreatmentoutcomesasystematicreview