4.7 Article

Influence of Platform Switching on Bone-level Alterations: A Three-year Randomized Clinical Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 92, Issue S12, Pages 139S-145S

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034513504953

Keywords

dental implant-abutment connection; dental implant-abutment designs; dental implant-abutment interface; dental implant; single-tooth dental implant; alveolar bone loss

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The concept of platform switching has been introduced to implant dentistry based on clinical observations of reduced peri-implant crestal bone loss. However, published data are controversial, and most studies are limited to 12 months. The aim of the present randomized clinical trial was to test the hypothesis that platform switching has a positive impact on crestal bone-level changes after 3 years. Two implants with a diameter of 4 mm were inserted crestally in the posterior mandible of 25 patients. The intraindividual allocation of platform switching (3.3-mm platform) and the standard implant (4-mm platform) was randomized. After 3 months of submerged healing, single-tooth crowns were cemented. Patients were followed up at short intervals for monitoring of healing and oral hygiene. Statistical analysis for the influence of time and platform type on bone levels employed the Brunner-Langer model. At 3 years, the mean radiographic peri-implant bone loss was 0.69 +/- 0.43 mm (platform switching) and 0.74 +/- 0.57 mm (standard platform). The mean intraindividual difference was 0.05 +/- 0.58 mm (95% confidence interval: -0.19, 0.29). Crestal bone-level alteration depended on time (p < .001) but not on platform type (p = .363). The present randomized clinical trial could not confirm the hypothesis of a reduced peri-implant crestal bone loss, when implants had been restored according to the concept of platform switching (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01917305).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available