International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level around Platform-Switched Implants

Karan Kapoor, Raj Gaurav Singh, Aanchal Puri, Rohit Mittal

Citation Information : Kapoor K, Singh RG, Puri A, Mittal R. Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level around Platform-Switched Implants. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014; 4 (1):6-10.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1098

Published Online: 01-03-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose

The long-term success of an implant depends on the stability of bone support for the implant. Most crestal bone loss occurs in the first year of implant placement. Platform-switching is an approach which can be clinically applied to preserve the crestal bone. The concept of ‘platform switching’ refers to the use of a smaller-diameter abutment on a larger-diameter implant collar. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate crestal bone level around platform-switched implants.

Materials and methods

Twenty implants with 5 mm diameter were placed in mandibular molar region. All implants had been placed at the crestal level at the time of surgery. Radiographs with grid were obtained 3, 6 and 12 months after loading and were evaluated by screen caliper software measuring the location of the crestal bone level relative to the implant platform.

Results

The implants showed a mean bone loss of 0.76 ± 0.1265 mm on mesial side and 0.72 ± 0.1481 mm on distal side after 1 year.

Conclusion

The findings of the current trial indicated that the use platform-switched implants lead to better preservation of crestal bone.

How to cite this article

Kapoor K, Singh RG, Puri A, Sharma A, Mittal R. Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level around Platform- Switched Implants. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;4(1): 6-10.


PDF Share
  1. Criteria for success osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(5):567-572.
  2. Tissue integration of non- submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1(1):33-40.
  3. The long- term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1(1):11-25.
  4. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72(10):1372-1383.
  5. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri- implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(3):255-261.
  6. Biologic width around titanium implants: a histometric analy- sis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68(2):186-198.
  7. Influence of flap design on peri-implant interproximal crestal bone loss around single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16(1):61-67.
  8. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59(1): 59-63.
  9. Clinical and microbiologic findings that may contribute to dental implant failure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(1):31-38.
  10. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(3):104-111.
  11. Pathogenesis of implant failures. Period- ontol 1994;4(1):127-138.
  12. A conical implant-abutment interface at the level of the marginal bone improves the distribution of stresses in the supporting bone. An axisymmetric finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14(3):286-293.
  13. The dimensions of the human dentogingival junction. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994;14(2):154-165.
  14. Dimension of the peri-implant mucosa. Bio-logical width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23(10):971-973.
  15. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(1):9-17.
  16. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2008 Aug;28(4):347-355.
  17. Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption. Implant Dentistry 2006;15(3):313-320.
  18. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Impl Res 2007;18(5):581-584.
  19. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001; 72(10):1372-1383.
  20. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels around platform-switched and nonplatform- switched implants used in an immediate loading protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(1):920-926.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.