ArticleNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
Does crown-to-implant ratio affect marginal bone loss around a single short implant at the posterior of the mandible?
Article in National journal of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Short implants are acceptable treatment options for atrophic ridges; however, they increase the crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio compared to regular length implants. The study aimed to assess the correlation between the C/I ratio and marginal bone loss (MBL) in single short implants at the posterior of the mandible. Aims: The study aimed to assess the correlation between the C/I ratio and MBL in single short implants at the posterior of the mandible. Settings and Design: Cross-sectional study. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed short implants with 6 mm lengths at the posterior of the mandible. The long-cone peri-apical digital radiographs were taken immediately after loading and 24 months later. Age, gender, implant diameter, gingival biotype, and implant brands were the study variables, and the C/I ratio was the predictive factor. The mean MBL at 2 years was considered the study outcome. Statistical Analysis Used: The Pearson correlation test was applied to assess the correlation between MBL and C/I. Results: Seventy implants (36 Straumann and 34 SGS implants) were studied. A significant difference was observed in the mean MBL between the two implant brands ( Conclusions: It seems that the C/I ratio is associated with an MBL increase in single short implants at the posterior of the mandible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.