Effect of Platform Switching on Peri-Implant Bone Levels

Danish Azeem Khan; Ashfaq Ahmed; Ayesha Aslam

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-10.13089

Authors

Danish Azeem Khan Department of Prosthodontics, 28 MDC, CMH Lahore Institute of Dentistry, Nums Pakistan
Ashfaq Ahmed Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 89 MDC Kohat Pakistan
Ayesha Aslam Department of Prosthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-10.13089

Keywords:

Alveolar bone; Dental implants; Marginal bone loss; Platform switching

Abstract

Objective: To radiographically assess and compare mean marginal bone loss (MBL) between platform-switched (PS) and platform-matched (PM) dental implants after functional loading

Study Design: Quasi-experimental Study

Place & Duration of Study: 89 MDC, Kohat, Pakistan; Oct 2022 to July 2023.

Methodology: Thirty subjects were selected, divided into 02 study groups (PS and PM), and provided with dental implants. In PS group, implants were platform – switched with a narrow abutment while in PM group, implants were restored with matching diameter abutments. Peri – implant MBL was evaluated radiographically on the mesial and distal aspect of each implant at the time of implant placement (T0), at the time of implant loading (T1) and at 06 months after implant loading (T2). Mean MBL was calculated and compared using independent sample’s t – test.

Results: For PS group, mean MBL on the mesial and distal aspect was 0.59 ± 0.40 mm and 0.75 ± 0.61 mm respectively. For PM group, mean MBL on the mesial and distal aspect was 1.37 ± 0.72 mm and 1.65 ± 0.74 mm. Mean difference in MBL between the two groups was statistically significant for both mesial and distal aspects (p=0.001). A moderately strong negative correlation was observed between extent of implant-abutment diameter mismatch and mean MBL around implants.

Conclusion: Platform switching helped in limiting marginal bone loss around dental implants. It may serve as a preventive measure in cases where increased bone loss is anticipated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Raco A, Murro B D, Passarelli P C, D'addona A, Pilloni A, Marini L, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic analysis of platform matching and platform switching implants in the esthetic zone: A retrospective cohort study. Appl Sci 2023;13(1):661.

https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010661

2. Branemark P I, Hansson B O, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/356184/

3. Gago-García A, Barrilero-Martín C, Petrakakis P, De Elio-Oliveros J, Del Canto-Pingarrón M, Alobera-Gracia MÁ, et al. Implant-prosthetic Rehabilitation with and without Platform Switching: A Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(9):1041-1047.

https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3181

4. Tomar S, Saxena D, Kaur N. Marginal bone loss around implants with platform switching and platform matched connection: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2023;S0022-3913(23):622-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.009

5. Lin H-K, Lin J C-Y, Pan Y-H, Salamanca E, Chang Y-T, Hsu Y-S, et al. Peri-implant marginal bone changes around dental implants with platform-switched and platform-matched abutments: A retrospective 5-year radiographic evaluation. J Pers Med 2022;12(8):1226.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12081226

6. Lazzara R J, Porter S S. Platform switching: A new concept in implant dentistry for controlling post-restorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(1):09-17.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16515092/

7. Liu S, Tang C, Yu J, Dai W, Bao. Y., Hu D. The effect of platform switching on stress distribution in implants and periimplant bone studied by nonlinear finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1111-1118.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.017

8. Juan-Montesinos A, Agustín-Panadero R, Solá-Ruiz M F, Marco-Pitarch R, Montiel-Company J M, Fons-Badal C. Comparative study by systematic review and meta-analysis of the peri-implant effect of two types of platforms: Platform-switching versus conventional platforms. J Clin Med 2022;11(6):1743.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061743

9. Farronato D, Manfredini M, Farronato M, Pasini P M, Orsina A A, Lops D. Behavior of soft tissue around platform-switched implants and non-platform-switched implants: A comparative three-year clinical study. J Clin Med 2021;10(13):2955.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132955

10. Meloni S M, Lumbau A, Baldoni E, Pisano M, Spano G, Massarelli O, et al. Platform switching versus regular platform single implants: 5-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Implantol 2020;13(1):43-52.

11. Messias A, Rocha S, Wagner W, Wiltfang J, Moergel M, Behrens E, et al. Peri-implant marginal bone loss reduction with platform-switching components: 5-Year post-loading results of an equivalence randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(6):678-687. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13119

12. Mishra S K, Gaddale R, Sonnahalli N K, Chowdhary R. Platform-switching concept in dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36(5):e97-e109. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8911

13. Bilhan H, Erdogan O, Geçkili O, Bilgin T. Comparison of Marginal Bone Levels Around Tissue-Level Implants with Platform-Matched and Bone-Level Implants with Platform-Switching Connections: 1-Year Results of a Prospective Cohort Study with a Split-Mouth Design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36(5):945-51.

https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8891

14. Uraz A, Isler S C, Cula S, Tunc S, Yalim M, Cetiner D. Platform-switched implants vs platform-matched implants placed in different implant-abutment interface positions: A prospective randomized clinical and microbiological study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020;22(1):59-68.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12873

15. Atieh M A, Ibrahim H M, Atieh A H. Platform Switching for Marginal Bone Preservation Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Periodontol 2010;81(10):1350-66.

https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100232

16. Amato F, Polara G, Spedicato G A. Immediate loading of fixed partial dental prostheses on extra-short and short implants in patients with severe atrophy of the posterior maxilla or mandible: An up-to-4-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35(3):607-615.

https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7943

17. El-Adl N M, Sholkamy H M, Emara A S. 1-year post-loading of short and ultrashort implants in posterior mandibular and maxillary regions. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2021;9(D):264-269. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.7237

18. Cruz R S, Lemos C a A, De Batista V E S, Yogui F C, Oliveira H F F, Verri F R. Narrow diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;50(5):674-682.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.10.001

19. Park J H, Shin S W, Lee J Y. Narrow-diameter versus regular-diameter dental implants for mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2023;32(8):669-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13726

20. Pesce P, Del Fabbro M, Modenese L, Sandron S, Francetti L, Isola G, et al. Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):235.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02962-8

21. Kowalski J, Lapinska B, Nissan J, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Factors Influencing Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants: A Narrative Review. Coatings 2021;11(7):865.

https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070865

22. Misch CE. Implant Body Size: A Biomechanical and Esthetic Rationale. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. ed. 3rd, Missouri: Mosby; 2008.

23. Cruz RS, De Luna Gomes JM, Fernandes E Oliveira HF, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR. Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(3):408-417.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.003