Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Platform switching vs standard implants in partially edentulous patients using the Dental Tech Implant System: clinical and radiological results from a prospective multicenter study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The main objective of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial prostheses, comparing platform switching and standard platform concepts.

Materials and methods

Patients with single or multiple partial edentulism were included in this prospective multicenter study. Success rate, as well as crestal bone loss and occurrence of complications were evaluated over time, for a minimum of 3 years after prosthesis delivery. Radiographic and clinical examination served to evaluate implant and prosthesis conditions.

Results

A total of 51 patients with 117 implants (55 in the centralized platform group and 62 in the standard platform group) were considered in the analysis. After 3 years of loading, the cumulative implant survival in test group was 90.3 %, while in the control group, it was 96.5 % without any statistically significant difference. After 3 years of function, the bone loss was 0.33 ± 0.19 mm in the test group and 0.48 ± 0.26 mm, revealing a significant difference.

Conclusions

Platform switching concept may lead to a reduction of marginal bone loss over time if compared to standardized one. Such effect seemed not to be related to a reduction of overall success rate of the treatment.

Clinical relevance

Platform switching could be a viable prosthetic option for implant treatment of partial edentulism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Erikson AR (1986) The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1:11–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummicoski PV, Buser D (1997) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 68:1117–1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hermann J, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL (2001) Biologic width around one-and two-piece titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:559–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B (1995) Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 22:255–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1998) Soft tissue response to plaque formation at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 9:73–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1996) Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biologic width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 23:971–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gardner DM (2005) Platform switching as a means to achieving implant esthetics. NY State Dent J 71:34–37

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baumgarten H, Cocchetto R, Testori T, Meltzer A, Porter S (2005) A new implant design for crestal bone preservation: initial observations and case report. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 17:735–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS (2006) Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorativecrestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 26:9–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Calvo Guirado JL, Saez Yuguero MR, Pardo Zamora G, Muñoz Barrio E (2007) Immediate provisionalization on a new implant design for esthetic restoration and preserving crestal bone. Implant Dent 16:155–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hermann F, Lerner H, Palti A (2007) Factors influencing the preservation of the periimplant marginal bone. Implant Dent 16:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M (2007) Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 18:581–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. (2000) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 284:3043-3045

  14. Jemt T (1997) Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:327–333

    Google Scholar 

  15. Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH (2010) Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 81:1350–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Al-Nsour MM, Chan HL (2012) Wang HL (2012) Effect of the platform-switching technique on preservation of peri-implant marginal bone: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:138–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF (2009) A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:299–308

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herekar M, Sethi M, Mulani S, Fernandes A, Kulkarni H (2014) Influence of platform switching on periimplant bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implant Dent 2014 May 9

  19. Makigusa K, Toda I, Yasuda K, Ehara D, Suwa F (2014) Effects of platform switching on crestal bone around implants: a histomorphometric study in monkeys. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34(Suppl):s35–s41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guerra F, Wagner W, Wiltfang J, Rocha S, Moergel M, Behrens E, Nicolau P (2014) Platform switch versus platform match in the posterior mandible—1-year results of a multicentre randomized clinical trial. J ClinPeriodontol 41:521–529

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wang YC, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P (2014) Lozada JL (2014) Marginal bone response of implants with platform switching and non-platform switching abutments in posterior healed sites: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12312

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ (2014) Impact of platform switching on peri-implant bone remodelling around short implants in the posterior region, 1-year results from a split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16:70–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Angelis N, Nevins ML, Camelo MC, Ono Y, Campailla M, Benedicenti S (2014) Platform switching versus conventional technique: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34(Suppl):s75–s79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2006) Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 85:473–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Canullo L, Pellegrini G, Allievi C, Trombelli L, Annibali S, Dellavia C (2011) Soft tissues around long-term platform switching implant restorations: a histologic human evaluation Preliminary results. J ClinPeriodontol 38:86–94

    Google Scholar 

  26. Becker J, Ferrari D, Herten M, Kirsch A, Schaer A, Schwarz F (2007) Influence of platform switching on crestal bone changes at non-submerged titanium implants: a histomorphometrical study on dogs. J ClinPeriodontol 34:1089–1096

    Google Scholar 

  27. Degidi M, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Piattelli A (2008) Immediately loaded titanium implant with a tissue-stabilizing/maintaining design (‘beyond platform switch’) retrieved from man after 4 weeks: a histological and histomorphometrical evaluation A case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:276–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu S, Tang C, Yu J, Dai W, Bao Y, Hu D (2014) The effect of platform switching on stress distribution in implants and periimplant bone studied by nonlinear finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.017

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pessoa RS, Bezerra FJ, Sousa RM, Sloten JV, Casat MZ, Jeacques SV (2014) Biomechanical evaluation of platform-switching: different mismatch sizes, connection types and implant protocols. J Periodontol 2014 May 7

  30. Martini AP, Barros RM, Junior AC, Rocha EP, de Almeida EO, Ferraz CC, Pellegrin MC, Anchieta RB (2013) Influence of platform and abutment angulation on peri-implant bone A three-dimensional finite element stress analysis. J Oral Implantol 39:663–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Khurana P, Sharma A, Sodhi KK (2013) Influence of fine threads and platform-switching on crestal bone stress around implant-a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 39:697–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Xia H, Wang M, Ma L, Zhou Y, Li Z, Wang Y (2013) The effect of platform switching on stress in peri-implant bone in a condition of marginal bone resorption: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:e122–e127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tabata LF, Rocha EP, Barao VA, Assuncao WG (2011) Platform switching: biomechanical evaluation using three-dimensional finite element analysis. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:482–491

    Google Scholar 

  34. Canullo L, Pace F, Coelho P, Sciubba E, Vozza I (2011) The influence of platform switching on the biomechanical aspects of the implant-abutment system. A three dimensional finite element study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 16:e852–e856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dental Tech S.R.L. (Misinto, Milano, Italy) generously provided all the implants and material needed for this study.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare they are free from any conflict of interest. The company providing the implants (Dental Tech S.R.L.) did not interfere at all with designing and carrying out of the study, and none of the authors received any compensation for their contribution to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Research Center for Oral Health, Milan, Italy

    Massimo Del Fabbro & Silvio Taschieri

  2. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi, 4, 20161, Milan, Italy

    Massimo Del Fabbro, Silvio Taschieri & Stefano Corbella

  3. Private Practice, Torino, Italy

    Carlo Bianchessi

  4. Private Practice, Firenze, Italy

    Riccardo Del Lupo

  5. Private Practice, Roma, Italy

    Luca Landi

  6. Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Research Center in Oral Implantology, Milan, Italy

    Stefano Corbella

Authors
  1. Massimo Del Fabbro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Bianchessi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Riccardo Del Lupo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca Landi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silvio Taschieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefano Corbella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Del Fabbro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Del Fabbro, M., Bianchessi, C., Del Lupo, R. et al. Platform switching vs standard implants in partially edentulous patients using the Dental Tech Implant System: clinical and radiological results from a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Invest 19, 2233–2244 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1462-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1462-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation