Platform-switching implants and bone preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the possible benefits of platform-switching (PSW) implants when compared to regular platform (RP) implants in the categories of bone preservation and longevity. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement, PICO question, and Jadad scale. The relative risk (RR) of failure and the mean difference for marginal bone loss were calculated considering a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were performed, and funnel plots drawn. Twenty-five studies (17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight prospective studies) involving 1098 patients and 2310 implants were analysed. The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in crestal bone loss for PSW implants compared with RP implants (-0.41mm, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.29, P<0.00001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in implant failure (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.6-2.02, P=0.75). A reduction in bone loss with PSW implants was observed for the following subgroups: RCTs only, implants in the maxilla, and implants in the mandible. PSW implants presented lower bone resorption compared with RP implants. RCTs should be done to explain the possible biases.

Platform‐switched implants vs platform‐matched implants placed in different implant‐abutment interface positions: A prospective randomized clinical and microbiological study

“…1,13,45 The platform-switching implant-abutment configurations, which allow inward reposition of the IAI, have been reported to show favorable outcomes compared to platform matching in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 31,46,47 However, some studies could not find any significant differences in terms of MBL changes between the implants restored with platform-switching and platformmatching. 35,36,48 The present investigation yielded the mean MBL It has been proved that bacteria could penetrate into the IAI microgaps and colonize in the inner region that could lead to periimplant soft tissue inflammation and crestal bone loss.…”

“…The platform‐switching implant‐abutment configurations, which allow inward reposition of the IAI, have been reported to show favorable outcomes compared to platform matching in several systematic reviews and meta‐analyses . However, some studies could not find any significant differences in terms of MBL changes between the implants restored with platform‐switching and platform‐matching .…”

Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two dental implants with different neck configurations

“…The use of this design has shown minimal bone loss over time in other clinical trials . A recently published systematic review revealed significant reductions in crestal bone loss when platform switched implants were compared to regular platform implants (−0.41 mm 95% CI −0.52 to −0.29) and long‐term follow‐up have also reported minimal bone loss over time . The results reported in this study, however, have shown that one‐piece implants were significantly superior in preventing crestal bone level changes between implant placement and loading when compared with the platform switched bone‐level implants.…”

Peri‐implant tissue healing at implants with different designs and placement protocols: An experimental study in dogs

“…Nobel Biocare) or a PS (Ankylos, Dentsply Friadent) design were assessed radiologically. The crestal bone level was identified in a significantly more coronal position at PS-implants than at PM-im- Recent reviews (Annibali et al, 2012;Atieh, Ibrahim, & Atieh, 2010;Santiago et al, 2016;Strietzel, Neumann, & Hertel, 2015) including studies with follow-up periods ranging from 12 to 60 months have also described significantly smaller mean crestal bone level changes at PS implants, as compared to PM implants.…”

“…Recent reviews (Annibali et al, ; Atieh, Ibrahim, & Atieh, ; Santiago et al, ; Strietzel, Neumann, & Hertel, ) including studies with follow‐up periods ranging from 12 to 60 months have also described significantly smaller mean crestal bone level changes at PS implants, as compared to PM implants.…”