Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth

Background: In locations with poor bone quality and significant masticatory pressures, bone resorption after tooth loss inhibits implant implantation. This condition requires augmentation or short implants. Materials and Methods: Fifty low-bone-height patients had single-tooth implants and were obse...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Anita Tiwari, Leena Tomer, Bina Kumari, Arya Gupta, Kunal Raj, Sambit Prasad
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2025-06-01
Series:Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_109_25
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849421065502064640
author Anita Tiwari
Leena Tomer
Bina Kumari
Arya Gupta
Kunal Raj
Sambit Prasad
author_facet Anita Tiwari
Leena Tomer
Bina Kumari
Arya Gupta
Kunal Raj
Sambit Prasad
author_sort Anita Tiwari
collection DOAJ
description Background: In locations with poor bone quality and significant masticatory pressures, bone resorption after tooth loss inhibits implant implantation. This condition requires augmentation or short implants. Materials and Methods: Fifty low-bone-height patients had single-tooth implants and were observed for 12 months. Radiographs examined crown height, crown-to-implant ratio, and marginal bone loss at baseline, six months, and 12 months. The correlation between crown height and marginal bone loss was examined. Results: The average crown-to-implant ratio was 1.8:1 in the study. Implant crown heights above 10 mm showed increased marginal bone loss. The mean marginal bone loss at six months was 0.25 ± 0.08 mm, rising to 0.38 ± 0.10 mm at 12 months. Implants with crown heights ≤10 mm had considerably reduced bone loss (P < 0.05) compared to implants with greater crown heights. Optimized crown height distributed lateral stresses for improved clinical results and implant stability. Conclusion: Implant-supported prostheses depend on crown height for lateral force distribution and marginal bone preservation. Implants ≤10 mm crown height showed decreased marginal bone loss and improved treatment results.
format Article
id doaj-art-5198d49b4a804dd990b79bbb4ad93ffc
institution Kabale University
issn 0976-4879
0975-7406
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
spelling doaj-art-5198d49b4a804dd990b79bbb4ad93ffc2025-08-20T03:31:33ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062025-06-0117Suppl 2S1550S155210.4103/jpbs.jpbs_109_25Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural TeethAnita TiwariLeena TomerBina KumariArya GuptaKunal RajSambit PrasadBackground: In locations with poor bone quality and significant masticatory pressures, bone resorption after tooth loss inhibits implant implantation. This condition requires augmentation or short implants. Materials and Methods: Fifty low-bone-height patients had single-tooth implants and were observed for 12 months. Radiographs examined crown height, crown-to-implant ratio, and marginal bone loss at baseline, six months, and 12 months. The correlation between crown height and marginal bone loss was examined. Results: The average crown-to-implant ratio was 1.8:1 in the study. Implant crown heights above 10 mm showed increased marginal bone loss. The mean marginal bone loss at six months was 0.25 ± 0.08 mm, rising to 0.38 ± 0.10 mm at 12 months. Implants with crown heights ≤10 mm had considerably reduced bone loss (P < 0.05) compared to implants with greater crown heights. Optimized crown height distributed lateral stresses for improved clinical results and implant stability. Conclusion: Implant-supported prostheses depend on crown height for lateral force distribution and marginal bone preservation. Implants ≤10 mm crown height showed decreased marginal bone loss and improved treatment results.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_109_25crown heightcrown-to-implant ratioimplant-supported prosthesesmarginal bone lossreduced bone height
spellingShingle Anita Tiwari
Leena Tomer
Bina Kumari
Arya Gupta
Kunal Raj
Sambit Prasad
Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth
Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
crown height
crown-to-implant ratio
implant-supported prostheses
marginal bone loss
reduced bone height
title Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth
title_full Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth
title_fullStr Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth
title_short Comparison between Crown-to-Root Ratio and Crown-to-Implant Ratio in Natural Teeth
title_sort comparison between crown to root ratio and crown to implant ratio in natural teeth
topic crown height
crown-to-implant ratio
implant-supported prostheses
marginal bone loss
reduced bone height
url https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_109_25
work_keys_str_mv AT anitatiwari comparisonbetweencrowntorootratioandcrowntoimplantratioinnaturalteeth
AT leenatomer comparisonbetweencrowntorootratioandcrowntoimplantratioinnaturalteeth
AT binakumari comparisonbetweencrowntorootratioandcrowntoimplantratioinnaturalteeth
AT aryagupta comparisonbetweencrowntorootratioandcrowntoimplantratioinnaturalteeth
AT kunalraj comparisonbetweencrowntorootratioandcrowntoimplantratioinnaturalteeth
AT sambitprasad comparisonbetweencrowntorootratioandcrowntoimplantratioinnaturalteeth