Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation
Identifieur interne : 003714 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003713; suivant : 003715Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation
Auteurs : David Schneider ; Lukas Witt ; Christoph H. F. H MmerleSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2012-02.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment teeth, Biological complications, Biological length ratio ratio, Biological ratio, Blanes, Blanes bernard, Bone loss, Bruxism, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical performance, Clinical periodontology, Complication, Complication rates, Continuous variables, Cumulative survival rate, Dental implants, Dental material science, Dentition, Discrete variables, Edentulous patients, Further studies, Healing time, Higher ratio, Higher risk, Implant, Implant diameter, Implant failure, Implant length, Implant restorations, Implant shoulder, Implant survival, Implant survival rate, Implant threads, Implant treatment, Implant type, Implants research, International journal, John wiley sons, John wiley sons schneider, Length ratio, Length ratio ratio, Lever principle, Marginal bone, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Median range, More implant failures, Narrow distribution, Natural dentition, Nite element analysis, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Oral medicine, Outcome parameters, Partial dentures, Periodontitis, Posterior maxilla, Posterior region, Posterior segments, Present study, Prospective study, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthetic designs, Range years, Recent studies, Regression analysis, Removable prosthodontics, Retention mode, Retrospective study, Schneider, Secondary predictors, Short implants, Single crown restorations, Single crowns, Single tooth restorations, Smoking habits, Statistical analyses, Statistical analysis, Statistical unit, Stress distribution, Survival rates, Systematic review, Technical complications, Technical ratio, Terminal position, Tooth extraction, Visible contact.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment teeth, Biological complications, Biological length ratio ratio, Biological ratio, Blanes, Blanes bernard, Bone loss, Bruxism, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical performance, Clinical periodontology, Complication, Complication rates, Continuous variables, Cumulative survival rate, Dental implants, Dental material science, Dentition, Discrete variables, Edentulous patients, Further studies, Healing time, Higher ratio, Higher risk, Implant, Implant diameter, Implant failure, Implant length, Implant restorations, Implant shoulder, Implant survival, Implant survival rate, Implant threads, Implant treatment, Implant type, Implants research, International journal, John wiley sons, John wiley sons schneider, Length ratio, Length ratio ratio, Lever principle, Marginal bone, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Median range, More implant failures, Narrow distribution, Natural dentition, Nite element analysis, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Oral medicine, Outcome parameters, Partial dentures, Periodontitis, Posterior maxilla, Posterior region, Posterior segments, Present study, Prospective study, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthetic designs, Range years, Recent studies, Regression analysis, Removable prosthodontics, Retention mode, Retrospective study, Schneider, Secondary predictors, Short implants, Single crown restorations, Single crowns, Single tooth restorations, Smoking habits, Statistical analyses, Statistical analysis, Statistical unit, Stress distribution, Survival rates, Systematic review, Technical complications, Technical ratio, Terminal position, Tooth extraction, Visible contact.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio (c/i ratio) on the implant survival, changes of the marginal bone level (MBL) and the occurrence of biological and technical complications.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02230.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title><author><name sortKey="Schneider, David" sort="Schneider, David" uniqKey="Schneider D" first="David" last="Schneider">David Schneider</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Witt, Lukas" sort="Witt, Lukas" uniqKey="Witt L" first="Lukas" last="Witt">Lukas Witt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="H Mmerle, Christoph H F" sort="H Mmerle, Christoph H F" uniqKey="H Mmerle C" first="Christoph H. F." last="H Mmerle">Christoph H. F. H Mmerle</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02230.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003714</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003714</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title><author><name sortKey="Schneider, David" sort="Schneider, David" uniqKey="Schneider D" first="David" last="Schneider">David Schneider</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Witt, Lukas" sort="Witt, Lukas" uniqKey="Witt L" first="Lukas" last="Witt">Lukas Witt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="H Mmerle, Christoph H F" sort="H Mmerle, Christoph H F" uniqKey="H Mmerle C" first="Christoph H. F." last="H Mmerle">Christoph H. F. H Mmerle</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="169">169</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="174">174</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-02">2012-02</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment teeth</term><term>Biological complications</term><term>Biological length ratio ratio</term><term>Biological ratio</term><term>Blanes</term><term>Blanes bernard</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bruxism</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical performance</term><term>Clinical periodontology</term><term>Complication</term><term>Complication rates</term><term>Continuous variables</term><term>Cumulative survival rate</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental material science</term><term>Dentition</term><term>Discrete variables</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Further studies</term><term>Healing time</term><term>Higher ratio</term><term>Higher risk</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant diameter</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant restorations</term><term>Implant shoulder</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implant survival rate</term><term>Implant threads</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Implant type</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>John wiley sons schneider</term><term>Length ratio</term><term>Length ratio ratio</term><term>Lever principle</term><term>Marginal bone</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Median range</term><term>More implant failures</term><term>Narrow distribution</term><term>Natural dentition</term><term>Nite element analysis</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Oral medicine</term><term>Outcome parameters</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Periodontitis</term><term>Posterior maxilla</term><term>Posterior region</term><term>Posterior segments</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthetic designs</term><term>Range years</term><term>Recent studies</term><term>Regression analysis</term><term>Removable prosthodontics</term><term>Retention mode</term><term>Retrospective study</term><term>Schneider</term><term>Secondary predictors</term><term>Short implants</term><term>Single crown restorations</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Single tooth restorations</term><term>Smoking habits</term><term>Statistical analyses</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Statistical unit</term><term>Stress distribution</term><term>Survival rates</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Technical ratio</term><term>Terminal position</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Visible contact</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment teeth</term><term>Biological complications</term><term>Biological length ratio ratio</term><term>Biological ratio</term><term>Blanes</term><term>Blanes bernard</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bruxism</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical performance</term><term>Clinical periodontology</term><term>Complication</term><term>Complication rates</term><term>Continuous variables</term><term>Cumulative survival rate</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental material science</term><term>Dentition</term><term>Discrete variables</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Further studies</term><term>Healing time</term><term>Higher ratio</term><term>Higher risk</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant diameter</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant restorations</term><term>Implant shoulder</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implant survival rate</term><term>Implant threads</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Implant type</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>John wiley sons schneider</term><term>Length ratio</term><term>Length ratio ratio</term><term>Lever principle</term><term>Marginal bone</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Median range</term><term>More implant failures</term><term>Narrow distribution</term><term>Natural dentition</term><term>Nite element analysis</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Oral medicine</term><term>Outcome parameters</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Periodontitis</term><term>Posterior maxilla</term><term>Posterior region</term><term>Posterior segments</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthetic designs</term><term>Range years</term><term>Recent studies</term><term>Regression analysis</term><term>Removable prosthodontics</term><term>Retention mode</term><term>Retrospective study</term><term>Schneider</term><term>Secondary predictors</term><term>Short implants</term><term>Single crown restorations</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Single tooth restorations</term><term>Smoking habits</term><term>Statistical analyses</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Statistical unit</term><term>Stress distribution</term><term>Survival rates</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Technical ratio</term><term>Terminal position</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Visible contact</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio (c/i ratio) on the implant survival, changes of the marginal bone level (MBL) and the occurrence of biological and technical complications.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>biological ratio</json:string><json:string>biological complications</json:string><json:string>periodontitis</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>technical complications</json:string><json:string>blanes</json:string><json:string>bruxism</json:string><json:string>single crown restorations</json:string><json:string>schneider</json:string><json:string>clinical performance</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>dentition</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>implant survival</json:string><json:string>retention mode</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>terminal position</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>complication</json:string><json:string>implant shoulder</json:string><json:string>technical ratio</json:string><json:string>outcome parameters</json:string><json:string>implant survival rate</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>implant diameter</json:string><json:string>systematic review</json:string><json:string>survival rates</json:string><json:string>clinical periodontology</json:string><json:string>range years</json:string><json:string>single crowns</json:string><json:string>statistical analysis</json:string><json:string>posterior segments</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>implant failure</json:string><json:string>implant treatment</json:string><json:string>removable prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>cumulative survival rate</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>more implant failures</json:string><json:string>nite element analysis</json:string><json:string>implant length</json:string><json:string>length ratio</json:string><json:string>implant type</json:string><json:string>statistical analyses</json:string><json:string>complication rates</json:string><json:string>secondary predictors</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons</json:string><json:string>higher risk</json:string><json:string>posterior maxilla</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons schneider</json:string><json:string>blanes bernard</json:string><json:string>natural dentition</json:string><json:string>statistical unit</json:string><json:string>continuous variables</json:string><json:string>discrete variables</json:string><json:string>narrow distribution</json:string><json:string>regression analysis</json:string><json:string>biological length ratio ratio</json:string><json:string>implant threads</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>smoking habits</json:string><json:string>healing time</json:string><json:string>oral medicine</json:string><json:string>median range</json:string><json:string>higher ratio</json:string><json:string>visible contact</json:string><json:string>recent studies</json:string><json:string>marginal bone</json:string><json:string>single tooth restorations</json:string><json:string>tooth extraction</json:string><json:string>short implants</json:string><json:string>stress distribution</json:string><json:string>prosthetic designs</json:string><json:string>further studies</json:string><json:string>implant restorations</json:string><json:string>posterior region</json:string><json:string>abutment teeth</json:string><json:string>lever principle</json:string><json:string>retrospective study</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level</json:string><json:string>length ratio ratio</json:string><json:string>dental material science</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>David Schneider</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Lukas Witt</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Christoph H. F. Hämmerle</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>biomechanics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>clinical research</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>clinical trials</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>finite element analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>prosthodontics</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR2230</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-6WHTKRPR-P</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio (c/i ratio) on the implant survival, changes of the marginal bone level (MBL) and the occurrence of biological and technical complications.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.767</score><pdfWordCount>4323</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28463</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>37</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>240</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title><pmid><json:string>21689162</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>23</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>169</first><last>174</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Switzerland Corresponding</json:string><json:string>University of Zurich</json:string><json:string>Zurich Switzerland Tel</json:string><json:string>Switzerland Lukas Witt, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>David Schneider</json:string><json:string>Malgorzata Roos</json:string><json:string>H. F. Ha</json:string><json:string>John Wiley</json:string><json:string>Science</json:string><json:string>The</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Blanes</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Basel</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Zurich</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Ante 1926</json:string><json:string>Lulic et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Blanes et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Rodoni et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Araujo & Lindhe 2005</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Schneider et al</json:string><json:string>Gruica et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Bornstein et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Schulte et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Georgiopoulos et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Koca et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Pierrisnard et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Wennstrom et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Rokni et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Laurell et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Ortorp & Jemt 2004</json:string><json:string>Rangert et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Tawil et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Jung et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>University of Zurich, Switzerland, between 1994 and 2004</json:string><json:string>Updegrave 1968</json:string><json:string>Blanes & Bernard 2007</json:string><json:string>Schropp et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Benic et al. 2009</json:string><json:string>Strietzel et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Weber et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Wang et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Blanes 2009</json:string><json:string>Nyman & Ericsson 1982</json:string><json:string>Yi et al. 1995</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-6WHTKRPR-P</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02230.x</json:string></doi><id>6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-02"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title><title level="a" type="short">Influence of the c/i ratio on the performance of implants supporting single crown restorations</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">David</forename><surname>Schneider</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Lukas</forename><surname>Witt</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Christoph H. F.</forename><surname>Hämmerle</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-6WHTKRPR-P</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02230.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR2230</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR2230.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2012.23.issue-2</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="169">169</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="174">174</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-02"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p><hi rend="bold">Purpose: </hi> The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio (c/i ratio) on the implant survival, changes of the marginal bone level (MBL) and the occurrence of biological and technical complications.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Material and methods: </hi> This cross‐sectional retrospective study included all patients with implants in the posterior segments supporting single crown restorations with a minimum follow‐up of 5 years. All patients were questioned and examined clinically and radiographically. The technical and biological c/i ratio and the MBL were measured on digitized periapical radiographs. The following outcome parameters in relation to the c/i ratio and the co‐factors were statistically analyzed: implant survival rate, MBL, occurrence of technical and biological complications. For statistical analysis, regression, correlation and survival analyses were applied (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.05).</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> Seventy patients (mean age of 50.7 years [range 19.8–76.6 years]) with a total of 100 implants (24 Straumann type, 76 Brånemark type) were included in this study. The mean follow‐up period was 6.2 years (range 4.73–11.7 years). Six implants failed during the follow‐up period, yielding a cumulative survival rate of 95.8% at 5 years in function. The mean technical c/i ratio was 1.04 (±0.26, range 0.59–2.01). The mean biological c/i ratio was 1.48 (±0.42, range 0.82–3.24). No statistically significant influence of the technical and biological c/i ratio was found on the implant survival, MBL and occurrence of technical and biological complications. When adjusted for the biological c/i ratio, smoking was the only co‐factor significantly associated with implant failure and biological complications.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion: </hi> In the present study, the c/i ratio did not influence the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations in the posterior segments of the jaw within the range tested.</p><p><hi rend="bold">To cite this article:</hi>
Schneider D, Witt L, Hämmerle CHF. Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation.
<hi rend="italic">Clin. Oral Impl. Res</hi>. <hi rend="bold">23</hi>, 2012; 169–174.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02230.x</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">biomechanics</term><term xml:id="k2">clinical research</term><term xml:id="k3">clinical trials</term><term xml:id="k4">finite element analysis</term><term xml:id="k5">prosthodontics</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="02102"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2012.23.issue-2</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="23">23</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-02">February 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02230.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR2230"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.9.1 mode:FullText" date="2011-11-15"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2012-01-06" type="xmlCorrected"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-06-21"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-06-21"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-01-16"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-02-25"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">169</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">174</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Corresponding author:</b>
<i>Dr. med., Dr. med. dent. David Schneider</i>
Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science
University of Zurich,
Plattenstrasse 11
8032 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel.:+41 44 634 32 51
Fax:+41 44 634 43 05
e‐mail: <email normalForm="david.schneider@zzm.uzh.ch">david.schneider@zzm.uzh.ch</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR2230.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b>, Accepted 24 April 2011</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="28"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5176"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="31"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title><title type="shortAuthors">Schneider et al.</title><title type="short">Influence of the c/i ratio on the performance of implants supporting single crown restorations</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>David</givenNames><familyName>Schneider</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Lukas</givenNames><familyName>Witt</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Christoph H. F.</givenNames><familyName>Hämmerle</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="CH"><unparsedAffiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="CH"><unparsedAffiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">biomechanics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">clinical research</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">clinical trials</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">finite element analysis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">prosthodontics</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p><b>Purpose: </b> The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio (c/i ratio) on the implant survival, changes of the marginal bone level (MBL) and the occurrence of biological and technical complications.</p><p><b>Material and methods: </b> This cross‐sectional retrospective study included all patients with implants in the posterior segments supporting single crown restorations with a minimum follow‐up of 5 years. All patients were questioned and examined clinically and radiographically. The technical and biological c/i ratio and the MBL were measured on digitized periapical radiographs. The following outcome parameters in relation to the c/i ratio and the co‐factors were statistically analyzed: implant survival rate, MBL, occurrence of technical and biological complications. For statistical analysis, regression, correlation and survival analyses were applied (<i>P</i><0.05).</p><p><b>Results: </b> Seventy patients (mean age of 50.7 years [range 19.8–76.6 years]) with a total of 100 implants (24 Straumann type, 76 Brånemark type) were included in this study. The mean follow‐up period was 6.2 years (range 4.73–11.7 years). Six implants failed during the follow‐up period, yielding a cumulative survival rate of 95.8% at 5 years in function. The mean technical c/i ratio was 1.04 (±0.26, range 0.59–2.01). The mean biological c/i ratio was 1.48 (±0.42, range 0.82–3.24). No statistically significant influence of the technical and biological c/i ratio was found on the implant survival, MBL and occurrence of technical and biological complications. When adjusted for the biological c/i ratio, smoking was the only co‐factor significantly associated with implant failure and biological complications.</p><p><b>Conclusion: </b> In the present study, the c/i ratio did not influence the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations in the posterior segments of the jaw within the range tested.</p><p><b>To cite this article:</b>
Schneider D, Witt L, Hämmerle CHF. Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation.
<i>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</i>. <b>23</b>, 2012; 169–174.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02230.x</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Influence of the c/i ratio on the performance of implants supporting single crown restorations</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David</namePart><namePart type="family">Schneider</namePart><affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lukas</namePart><namePart type="family">Witt</namePart><affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Christoph H. F.</namePart><namePart type="family">Hämmerle</namePart><affiliation>Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-02</dateIssued><edition>Date:, Accepted 24 April 2011</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">28</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">31</extent><extent unit="words">5176</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio (c/i ratio) on the implant survival, changes of the marginal bone level (MBL) and the occurrence of biological and technical complications.</abstract><abstract>Material and methods: This cross‐sectional retrospective study included all patients with implants in the posterior segments supporting single crown restorations with a minimum follow‐up of 5 years. All patients were questioned and examined clinically and radiographically. The technical and biological c/i ratio and the MBL were measured on digitized periapical radiographs. The following outcome parameters in relation to the c/i ratio and the co‐factors were statistically analyzed: implant survival rate, MBL, occurrence of technical and biological complications. For statistical analysis, regression, correlation and survival analyses were applied (P<0.05).</abstract><abstract>Results: Seventy patients (mean age of 50.7 years [range 19.8–76.6 years]) with a total of 100 implants (24 Straumann type, 76 Brånemark type) were included in this study. The mean follow‐up period was 6.2 years (range 4.73–11.7 years). Six implants failed during the follow‐up period, yielding a cumulative survival rate of 95.8% at 5 years in function. The mean technical c/i ratio was 1.04 (±0.26, range 0.59–2.01). The mean biological c/i ratio was 1.48 (±0.42, range 0.82–3.24). No statistically significant influence of the technical and biological c/i ratio was found on the implant survival, MBL and occurrence of technical and biological complications. When adjusted for the biological c/i ratio, smoking was the only co‐factor significantly associated with implant failure and biological complications.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: In the present study, the c/i ratio did not influence the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations in the posterior segments of the jaw within the range tested.</abstract><abstract>To cite this article:
Schneider D, Witt L, Hämmerle CHF. Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23, 2012; 169–174.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02230.x</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>biomechanics</topic><topic>clinical research</topic><topic>clinical trials</topic><topic>finite element analysis</topic><topic>prosthodontics</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>23</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>169</start><end>174</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-6WHTKRPR-P</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02230.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR2230</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003714 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003714 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:6F7C951EB6F063DD6EA1AF9924EB296B44BD4B71
|texte= Influence of the crown‐to‐implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross‐sectional retrospective 5‐year investigation
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |