Influence of crown‐to‐implant ratio and different prosthetic designs on the clinical conditions of short implants in posterior regions: A 4‐year retrospective clinical and radiographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short implants (intra-bony length ≤ 8 mm) are generally considered as an alternative to bone augmentation in challenging situations; however, clinical evidence from large-scale studies with long follow-up regarding the application of short implants remains deficient. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to assess the mid-term clinical outcomes of short implants supporting fixed prostheses in the posterior region, and to investigate the effects of the crown-to-implant ratio (C/I), and other patient-, implant-, prosthesis-relevant factors on the clinical conditions around short implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 180 Thommen short implants in 130 partially edentulous patients were enrolled in the study after 3 to 7 (mean 4.2) years of follow-up. Potential risk factors (patient sex and age, implant diameter and location, splinted vs single-tooth restorations, retention mode, anatomical and clinical C/I ratios) were evaluated according to the following outcomes: Implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complications. RESULTS: In total, four implants in four patients failed as a result of peri-implantitis. The cumulative survival rate was 97.8% for implant-based analysis. The peri-implant MBL around 180 short implants was 0.90 ± 0.78 mm. The mean clinical C/I ratio was 1.16 ± 0.36. Correlation analysis revealed that the influence of the clinical C/I ratio and patient age were significant for MBL (P < .05), whereas other potential risk factors showed no significant association with the outcome. Among 180 short implants, 24 cases (13.3%) had biological complications and 32 cases (17.8%) had mechanical complications, respectively. Peri-implant MBL and complication rates around splinted and non-splinted implants were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, short implants supporting fixed prostheses in the posterior region achieved predictable clinical outcomes over a 3 to 7 year period. Within the range of 0.47 to 3.01, the higher the C/I ratio, the less the peri-implant MBL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".