The Effect of Platform Switching on Periimplant Crevicular Fluid Content During Early Wound Healing

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this study was to investigate the soft tissue response and periimplant crevicular fluid (PICF) content around platform-switched (PS) and platform-matched (PM) implants during early healing. Materials and Methods Non-smokers treatment planned to receive a single implant in 2 quadrants were recruited. Two-stage implant placement protocol with 1 PM and 1 PS implant was implemented. Periimplant probing depths (PDs), modified sulcus bleeding index, and plaque indices were recorded, and PICF was collected at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks after abutment connection. Results PD readings were higher at week 1 than at week 6 for both groups (P = 0.0005). PD was statistically deeper in PM than in PS at week 1 (P = 0.03). There was a time-dependent decrease in total PICF volume for both groups. This decrease was statistically significant for PS (P = 0.0005), with no differences between the 2 groups at any time (P > 0.05). The decrease observed in both PM and PS for PICF interleukin 6 and macrophage inflammatory protein-1β, and in PS for tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) was statistically significant (P ≤ 0.03). TNF-α was statistically higher in PS than in PM at week 1 (P = 0.005). Conclusion Within the limits of this study, it seems that periimplant soft tissue response around PM and PS implants is mostly similar during the early healing period.

Soft tissue healing around platform‐switching and platform‐matching single implants: A randomized clinical trial

“…PICF volume was not affected by the additional surgical procedure (data not shown). Compared to our previous study, 29 the PICF volume and the concentration of inflammatory cytokines were lower in this study. This could relate to the implant platform design because the implants used in this study were specifically designed to match their corresponding healing abutments and to establish either a PM or PS setting.…”

“…Thus, PS implant does not seem to influence cellular responses related to early phases of healing despite of improved changes observed in some of the clinical parameters. These findings are mostly in agreement with our previous publication of similar study design 29 …”

“…These findings are mostly in agreement with our previous publication of similar study design. 29 Study population that included 18 patients with 36 implant fixtures of specific platform designs allowed us to investigate soft tissue response to PS and compare it with that to PM. Cross-sectional study design allowed similar distributions for systemic and local variables important for wound healing such as gender, age, systemic health con-ditions as well as periodontal health and dental plaque accumulation throughout the observation period.…”

Cytokine, chemokine, and growth factor levels in peri‐implant sulcus during wound healing and osseointegration after piezosurgical versus conventional implant site preparation: Randomized, controlled, split‐mouth trial

“…Therefore, detectable but steady PISF levels of biochemical markers from 4 to 24 weeks in our study may reflect continuous maturation of peri‐implant mucosa and remodeling of CB in order to form and maintain the attachment in the neck area of the implant. The present findings were consistent with those from previous PISF studies regarding 6 to 12 weeks of early implant healing . The aforementioned studies also demonstrated that PISF levels of 8 molecules, including IL‐1β, G.CSF, MIP‐1β, IL‐6, IFN‐γ, IL‐8, IP‐10, and VEGF, in a similar manner observed in the present study, were high in early stages of peri‐implant wound healing and decreased generally between 4‐ to 8 weeks.…”

Analysis of Biomarkers and Marginal Bone Loss in Platform-Switched and Nonplatform-Switched Implants: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…To date, human trials heavily evaluated biomarker levels in PICF and their relationship with peri-implant disease [ 9 , 11 , 16 ]. However, studies focusing on biochemical analysis of PS with PICF biomarkers are limited [ 4 , 17 ]. This study is aimed at addressing the abovementioned research gap, focusing on biochemically investigating the association between marginal bone loss, peri-implant status, and RANKL, OPG, IL-1 β , and MCP-1 levels in PICF around PS and nonplatform-switched (NPS) implants in the first year of function.…”