Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.03624
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Effect of platform switching on bone loss around implants: a retrospective study

Efeito da plataforma switching na perda óssea ao redor de implantes: um estudo retrospectivo

Lorena Gonçalves ALEXANDRINO; Leticia de Santana MASCARENHAS; Gabriela Moretto dos SANTOS; Flávia Noemy Gasparini Kiatake FONTÃO; Valdir Gouveia GARCIA; Luis Eduardo Marques PADOVAN; Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de OLIVEIRA; Élcio MARCANTONIO JUNIOR

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.03624 Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.53, e20240036, 2024
PDF
Downloads: 0
Views: 29

Abstract

Introduction: The impact of switching platform unevenness on bone stability is not yet known.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different mismatching of platform switching on the bone stability around implants with a Morse taper with internal angulation of 16º after 4-11 months of prosthetic loading.

Material and method: The implants were evaluated in two experimental periods (implant installation time and loading, and maintenance visit – after between 4 and 11 months of prosthetic loading). The variables evaluated were the bone level assessed by periapical radiography, and the survival rates of the dental implants. The peri-implant bone level was also evaluated according to the diameter of the implants used.

Result: One hundred and nineteen dental implants placed in 45 patients were evaluated. Of these implants, 33 presented a 3.5mm diameter, 33 a 3.75mm diameter, 19 a 4.0 mm diameter, and 34 a 4.3 mm diameter. The variation in bone loss from these implants was 0.36 ± 0.34 mm. The correlation index between the implant diameters and peri implant bone loss was r = 0.01, with a p value = 0.22. This finding indicates that the correlation between the variation in peri-implant bone level and the implant diameter was not significant. The survival rate of the total sample was 97.47%.

Conclusion: Implants with a Morse taper connection and 16º internal angulation presented good early survival rates with limited bone loss, that was not influenced by the degree of platform switching.

Keywords

Dental implants; marginal bone loss; platform switching

Resumo

Introdução: O impacto do desnível da plataforma switching na estabilidade óssea ainda não é conhecido.

Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o efeito de diferentes desníveis (mismatchings) da plataforma switching na estabilidade óssea ao redor de implante com uma conexão Morse de angulação interna modificada (16°) após 4 a 11 meses do carregamento protético.

Material e método: Os implantes foram avaliados em dois períodos experimentais (momento da instalação e carregamento protético e no momento da visita de manutenção – após 4 a 11 meses do carregamento protético). As varáveis avaliadas foram o nível ósseo avaliado através de radiografia periapical e a taxa de sobrevivência destes implantes. O nível ósseo peri-implantar também foi avaliado de acordo com o diâmetro utilizado.

Resultado: 119 implantes dentários instalados em 45 pacientes foram avaliados. Destes implantes, 33 apresentaram diâmetro de 3.5mm, 33 implantes apresentaram 3.75mm e 19 apresentaram 4.0mm de diâmetro. A variação na perda óssea destes implantes foi de 0.36 ± 0.34 mm. O índice de correlação entre os diâmetros do implante e a perda óssea peri-implantar foi r=0.01, com um valor de p=0.22. Esses achados indicam que a correlação entre a variação do nível ósseo peri-implantar e o diâmetro do implante não foi significativa. A taxa de sobrevivência total da amostra foi de 97,47%.

Conclusão: Implantes com conexão Morse com angulação interna de 16° boas taxas de sobrevivência em curto prazo de acompanhamento, apresentando perda óssea limitada, a qual não foi influenciada pelos diferentes desníveis provocados pelo diâmetro do implante.

Palavras-chave

Implantes dentários; perda óssea marginal; plataforma switching

References

1 Camps-Font O, Rubianes-Porta L, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Jung RE, Gay-Escoda C, Figueiredo R. Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections for implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Sep;130(3):327-40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.029. PMid:34776267.

2 Koutouzis T. Implant‐abutment connection as contributing factor to peri‐implant diseases. Periodontol 2000. 2019 Oct;81(1):152-66. http://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12289. PMid:31407436.

3 Varise CG, Abi-Rached F O, Messias AM, Neves FD, Segalla JCM, Reis JMSN. Sistema Cone Morse e utilização de pilares com plataforma switching. Rev Bras Odontol. 2015 Jan-Jun;72(1-2):56-61. http://doi.org/10.18363/rbo.v72i1/2.578.

4 De Castro DSM, De Araujo MAR, Benfatti CAM, De Araujo CDRP, Piattelli A, Perrotti V, et al. Comparative histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of marginal bone resorption around external hexagon and morse cone implants: an experimental study in dogs. Implant Dent. 2014;23(3):270-6. http://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000089. PMid:24819808.

5 Norton MR. Assessment of cold welding properties of the internal conical interface of two commercially available implant systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(2):159-66. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70243-X. PMid:9922428.

6 Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strenght of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(4):290-8. http://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x. PMid:9586476.

7 Martinhão CVM, Devita RL, Brum IS, Gross A, de Carvalho JJ, Gross JM. Radiographic evaluation of the adaptation of prosthetic components on different dental implant prosthetic interfaces: cone morse, internal hexagon and external hexagon. Int J Dent Sci Res. 2020;8(5):127-32. http://doi.org/10.12691/ijdsr-8-5-3.

8 Messias A, Rocha S, Wagner W, Wiltfang J, Moergel M, Behrens E, et al. Peri‐implant marginal bone loss reduction with platform‐switching components: 5‐Year post‐loading results of an equivalence randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(6):678-87. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13119. PMid:31025365.

9 Pessoa RS, Sousa RM, Pereira LM, Neves FD, Bezerra FJB, Jaecques SVN, et al. Bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon and morse‐taper connections: a randomized, controlled, split‐mouth, clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(1):97-110. http://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12437. PMid:27353076.

10 Sanz-Esporrin J, Carral C, Blanco J, Sanz-Casado JV, Muñoz F, Sanz M. Differences in the progression of experimental peri-implantitis depending on the implant to abutment connection. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(6):3577-87. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03680-z. PMid:33179178.

11 Bazzazi S, Sharifi R, Hasheminasab M, Ghazanfari R. Radiographic comparison of the crestal bone loss in the bone-level and tissue-level implants in implant-supported mandibular overdentures. J Craniomaxillofacial Res. 2022;9(3):135-43. http://doi.org/10.18502/jcr.v9i3.12697.

12 Vigolo P, Givani A. Platform-switched restorations on wide-diameter implants: a 5-year clinical prospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;101(6):394. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60084-6.

13 Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Stellini E, Di Fiore A. Influence of platform-switched restoration on bone resorption in patients treated with wide-diameter, external-hex–connection dental implants: a 10-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023 Jan-Feb;38(1):46-52. http://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9744. PMid:37099586.

14 Abou‐Ayash S, Schimmel M, Kraus D, Mericske‐Stern R, Albrecht D, Enkling N. Platform switching in two‐implant bar‐retained mandibular overdentures: 1‐year results from a split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(10):968-79. http://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13640. PMid:32716589.

15 Blanco J, Pico A, Caneiro L, Nóvoa L, Batalla P, Martín‐Lancharro P. Effect of abutment height on interproximal implant bone level in the early healing: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(1):108-17. http://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13108. PMid:29222809.

16 Gago-García A, Barrilero-Martín C, Petrakakis P, De Elio-Oliveros J, Del Canto-Pingarrón M, Alobera-Gracia MÁ, et al. Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation with and without platform switching: a retrospective clinical cohort study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22(9):1041-7. http://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3181. PMid:35000950.

17 Pessoa RS, Bezerra FJB, Sousa RM, Vander Sloten J, Casati MZ, Jaecques SVN. Biomechanical evaluation of platform switching: different mismatch sizes, connection types, and implant protocols. J Periodontol. 2014;85(9):1161-71. http://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2014.130633. PMid:24635544.

18 Hirooka H, Renvert S. Diagnosis of periimplant disease. Implant Dent. 2019 Apr;28(2):144-9. http://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000868. PMid:30807404.

19 Caricasulo R, Malchiodi L, Ghensi P, Fantozzi G, Cucchi A. The influence of implant‐abutment connection to peri‐implant bone loss: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Aug;20(4):653-64. http://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12620. PMid:29761902.

20 Moon SY, Lim YJ, Kim MJ, Kwon HB. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of platform switched implant. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017 Feb;9(1):31-7. http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.1.31. PMid:28243389.

21 Aslam A, Hassan SH, Aslam HM, Khan DA. Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone: a 3D finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jun;121(6):935-40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.011. PMid:30711297.

22 De Medeiros RA, Pellizzer EP, Vechiato AJ Fo, Dos Santos DM, Da Silva EVF, Goiato MC. Evaluation of marginal bone loss of dental implants with internal or external connections and its association with other variables: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Oct;116(4):501-506.e5. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.027. PMid:27422232.

23 Shalash M, Abdalsamad A. Crestal bone loss around tissue level implants with platform matching abutments versus bone level implants with conical/platform switched abutments in the posterior mandible: a comparative study. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2020;44(1):184. http://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-020-00441-6.

24 Taheri M, Akbari S, Shamshiri AR, Shayesteh YS. Marginal bone loss around bone-level and tissue-level implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Anat. 2020 Sep;231:151525. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2020.151525. PMid:32380195.

25 Gehrke SA, Bercianos M, Aguerrondo JG, Calvo-Guirado JL, Prados-Frutos JC. Influence of mucosal thickness, implant dimensions and stability in cone morse implant installed at subcrestal bone level on the peri-implant bone: a prospective clinical and radiographic study. Symmetry (Basel). 2019;11(9):1138. http://doi.org/10.3390/sym11091138.

26 Aimetti M, Ferrarotti F, Mariani G, Ghelardoni C, Romano F. Soft tissue and crestal bone changes around implants with platform-switched abutments placed nonsubmerged at subcrestal position: a 2-year clinical and radiographic evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Nov-Dec;30(6):1369-77. http://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4017. PMid:26478966.

27 Baggi L, Di Girolamo M, Vairo G, Sannino G. Erratum to: "Comparative evaluation of osseointegrated dental implants based on platform-switching concept: influence of diameter, length, thread shape, and in-bone positioning depth on stress-based performance". Comput Math Methods Med. 2014;2014:467358. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/467358.
 

Submitted date:
10/25/2024

Accepted date:
11/03/2024

67609714a9539518056a5897 rou Articles
Links & Downloads
1807-2577 (Electronic)
Rev. odontol. UNESP ©2024 All rights reserved.

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections