PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio over survival rate, marginal bone loss, and prosthetic complications of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central) and manual searches for clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were performed. Clinical and anatomical C/I ratios were obtained. Regression models were created to assess for potential correlation between C/I ratio (anatomical and clinical) and survival rate, marginal bone loss, or prosthetic complications. A subgroup analysis of 6-mm implants and a comparison of C/I ratios of > 1.5 versus ≤ 1.5 were also performed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool For Randomized Controlled Trials were used to evaluate the risk of bias. RESULTS: An overall moderate risk of bias was assessed among the selected articles. Linear regression analysis did not reveal a significant correlation between anatomical C/I ratios and survival rate (P = .905), marginal bone loss (P = 0.33), or prosthetic complications (P = .67). Similarly, no significant correlation to survival rate and marginal bone loss (P = 0.42, P = 0.84) was observed in the articles providing the clinical C/I ratios. CONCLUSION: Increased C/I ratio does not seem to be directly related with increased marginal bone loss and does not represent a biomechanical risk factor for the stability of the prosthesis and for the survival of dental implants.
PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio over survival rate, marginal bone loss, and prosthetic complications of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central) and manual searches for clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were performed. Clinical and anatomical C/I ratios were obtained. Regression models were created to assess for potential correlation between C/I ratio (anatomical and clinical) and survival rate, marginal bone loss, or prosthetic complications. A subgroup analysis of 6-mm implants and a comparison of C/I ratios of > 1.5 versus ≤ 1.5 were also performed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool For Randomized Controlled Trials were used to evaluate the risk of bias. RESULTS: An overall moderate risk of bias was assessed among the selected articles. Linear regression analysis did not reveal a significant correlation between anatomical C/I ratios and survival rate (P = .905), marginal bone loss (P = 0.33), or prosthetic complications (P = .67). Similarly, no significant correlation to survival rate and marginal bone loss (P = 0.42, P = 0.84) was observed in the articles providing the clinical C/I ratios. CONCLUSION: Increased C/I ratio does not seem to be directly related with increased marginal bone loss and does not represent a biomechanical risk factor for the stability of the prosthesis and for the survival of dental implants.