Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: preliminary results of 18 months follow‐up a prospective randomized match‐paired controlled trial

Abstract

Within the limits of this study, the present results suggest that bone resorption is mostly related to biologic (biologic width re-establishment) rather than to biomechanical factors (implant platform diameter). Furthermore long-term studies with a wider sample size are needed to confirm the platform diameter influence on hard tissue response around implants restored according to the PS concept.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Platform Switching: Different Mismatch Sizes, Connection Types, and Implant Protocols

“…These assumptions are supported by recent animal studies 13‐15 and human histologic observations 16,17 . Furthermore, prospective‐controlled studies, 18‐24 literature reviews, and meta‐analyses 25‐27 confirmed that PS may preserve peri‐implant bone height and soft tissue levels, although the magnitude of the observed marginal bone level alterations varied among the studies.…”

“…Other authors also found that, although PS slightly reduces the stress/strain in crestal bone, it did not differ significantly between the models with and without PS 32,33 . These observations have been corroborated by a recent controlled clinical trial in which no statistically significant differences were found using implants with different diameters but the same implant/abutment mismatch 20 …”

Risk Factors Associated With Implant Marginal Bone Loss

“…[4][5][6] Measurements of MBL changes over time in radiographs have been reported to be important parameters. Canullo et al 11 suggested that MBL could be measured from a standard landmark at the collar of the implant. Thus, MBL should be detected by periapical radiographs and in the current study parallel radiographic technique was used to measure bone level.…”

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

“…2012) with re‐establishment of the biological width and maturation of the barrier function that takes place following bacterial invasion of the implant/abutment interface and requires 6–8 weeks of healing (Canullo et al. 2012, Hermann et al. 2000, 2001, Sculean et al.…”