The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Implant-prosthetic Rehabilitation with and without Platform Switching: A Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study

Alejandro Gago-García, Cayetana Barrilero-Martín, Pantelis Petrakakis, Joaquín de Elio-Oliveros, Mariano del Canto-Pingarrón, Miguel Ángel Alobera-Gracia, Jesús Seco-Calvo

Keywords : Crestal bone loss, Dental abutments, Implants, Insertion torque, Patient satisfaction, Platform switching, Screw loosening

Citation Information : Gago-García A, Barrilero-Martín C, Petrakakis P, de Elio-Oliveros J, del Canto-Pingarrón M, Alobera-Gracia MÁ, Seco-Calvo J. Implant-prosthetic Rehabilitation with and without Platform Switching: A Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (9):1041-1047.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3181

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 06-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The study aimed to retrospectively compare peri-implant bone loss, prosthetic complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after implant-prosthetic treatment on abutments with platform switch or platform match. Materials and methods: Records of patients, who received implant-prosthetic treatment on abutments with/without platform switch in a single dental clinic between November 2015 and November 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. Analysis was restricted to the following patient selection criteria: no need for any bone grafting procedures before/during implant placement, and no serious systemic disease. Implants were conventionally loaded with screwed prosthetic restorations after a healing period of 3 months. Crestal bone loss was measured by digital radiography at implant placement and after at least 2 years under functional implant loading conditions. Patient satisfaction was recorded with the visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of the follow-up examination. Results: Clinical records of 59 patients were available for analysis. Patients of the study cohort received in total 128 implants with different lengths and diameters according to the manufacturer\'s specifications. Prosthetic restorations were fixed either on abutments with platform switch (BEGO PS-UNI: n = 74; 57.8%) or platform match (BEGO SUB-TEC Universal: n = 54; 42.2%). No implant was lost and no failure of prosthetic restoration was recorded during follow-up, except for prosthetic screw loosening in 32 implants (25.0%). Abutment type and location (maxilla vs mandible) had a significant impact on peri-implant bone loss (OR = 3.4; 2.8). A significant reduced rate of bone loss was observed at implant sites, provided with abutments according to the platform switch concept (35.1 vs 64.8%). No significant correlation was recorded between less bone loss and a higher patient satisfaction, while loosening of the prosthetic screw was significantly associated with lower satisfaction scores. Conclusion: BEGO PS-UNI abutments with a platform switch design revealed significant less crestal bone loss after a mean observation period of 20.8 months. Clinical significance: Abutments with a platform switch design may lead to less peri-implant bone loss. In order to maintain a higher patient satisfaction, clinicians should focus on the quality of the implant-prosthetic connection in screwed restorations.


PDF Share
  1. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, et al. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106(1):527–551. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.t01-2-.x.
  2. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, et al. 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. PMID: 3527955.
  3. Qian J, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(6):792–807. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12014.
  4. Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH. Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2010;81(10):1350–1366. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100232.
  5. Sahabi M, Adibrad M, Mirhashemi FS, et al. Biomechanical effects of platform switching in two different implant systems: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent (Tehran) 2013;10(4): 338–350. PMID: 24396353. PMCID: PMC3875508.
  6. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, et al. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(5):581–584. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01398.x.
  7. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, et al. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(3):255–261. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00143.x.
  8. Lazzara R, Porter S. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone level. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(1):9–17. PMID: 16515092.
  9. Aslam A, Ahmed B. Platform-switching to preserve peri-implant bone: a meta-analysis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2016;26(4):315–319. PMID: 27097705.
  10. de Medeiros RA, Pellizzer EP, Vechiato Filho AJ, et al. 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;116(4):501–506.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.027.
  11. Alrabeah GO, Knowles JC, Petridis H. Reduction of tribocorrosion products when using the platform-switching concept. J Dent Res 2018;97(9):995–1002. DOI: 10.1177/0022034518765751.
  12. Naveau A, Shinmyouzu K, Moore C, et al. Etiology and measurement of peri-implant crestal bone loss (CBL). J Clin Med 2019;8(2). DOI: 10.3390/jcm8020166.
  13. Noronha Oliveira M, Schunemann WVH, Mathew MT, et al. Can degradation products released from dental implants affect peri-implant tissues? J Periodontal Res 2018;53(1):1–11. DOI: 10.1111/jre.12479.
  14. Abrahamsson KH, Wennstrom JL, Berglundh T, et al. Altered expectations on dental implant therapy; views of patients referred for treatment of peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(4): 437–442. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12817.
  15. Korfage A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJA, et al. Patients’ expectations of oral implants: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2018;11(Suppl. 1): S65–S76. PMID: 30109300.
  16. Canallatos JE, Hobbs GR, Bryington MS, et al. The effect of implant prosthesis complications on patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(2):269–276. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.015.
  17. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 1941;2(3):281–284. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-194105000-00004.
  18. Misch CE. Divisions of available bone in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;7(1):9–17. PMID: 2103123.
  19. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6(2):23–31. PMID: 2073394.
  20. King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, et al. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002;73(10):1111–1117. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.10.1111.
  21. Penarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernandez AJ, Alonso-Gonzalez R, et al. Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(11):1192–1200. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x.
  22. Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Bonfante EA, et al. Comparison of external and internal implant-abutment connections for implant supported prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2018;70: 14–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.001.
  23. Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, da Silva EV, et al. Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;19(3):229–242. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-015-0494-5.
  24. Palacios-Garzon N, Mauri-Obradors E, Rosello LX, et al. Comparison of marginal bone loss between implants with internal and external connections: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33(3):580–589. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6190.
  25. Pjetursson BE, Zarauz C, Strasding M, et al. A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(Suppl. 18): 160–183. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13362.
  26. Vetromilla BM, Brondani LP, Pereira-Cenci T, et al. Influence of different implant-abutment connection designs on the mechanical and biological behavior of single-tooth implants in the maxillary esthetic zone: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(3):398–403.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.007.
  27. Chen Z, Zhang Y, Li J, et al. Influence of laser-microtextured surface collar on marginal bone loss and peri-implant soft tissue response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2017;88(7): 651–662. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.160805.
  28. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17(1):5–15. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059.
  29. Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, et al. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(4):e28–e34. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12324.
  30. Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Östman PO, et al. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol 2000 2017;73(1):41–50. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12176.
  31. Cardaropoli G, Lekholm U, Wennström JL. Tissue alterations at implant-supported single-tooth replacements: a 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(2):165–171. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01210.x.
  32. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71(4): 546–549. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546.
  33. Albrektsson T, Buser D, Sennerby L. On crestal/marginal bone loss around dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33(1):9–11. PMID: 23342341.
  34. Ritter L, Elger MC, Rothamel D, et al. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43(6):20130088. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130088.
  35. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16(4):475–485. PMID: 11515994.
  36. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C. Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: mean follow-up of 15 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30(7):691–701. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13454.
  37. Cacaci C, Cantner F, Mucke T, et al. Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(6):1953–1959. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1982-1.
  38. Heierle L, Wolleb K, Hammerle CH, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing cemented versus screw-retained single crowns on customized zirconia abutments: 3-year results. Int J Prosthodont 2019;32(2):174–176. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6080.
  39. Kraus RD, Epprecht A, Hammerle CHF, et al. Cemented vs screw-retained zirconia-based single implant reconstructions: a 3-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(4):578–585. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12735.
  40. Weigl P, Saarepera K, Hinrikus K, et al. Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(3):1067–1075. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2531-x.
  41. Korsch M, Walther W. Retrospective analysis of loosening of cement-retained vs screw-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions. Quintessence Int 2015;46(7):583–589. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a34077.
  42. Wang JH, Judge R, Bailey D. A 5-year retrospective assay of implant treatments and complications in private practice: the restorative complications of single and short-span implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29(5):435–444. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4794.
  43. Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, et al. Complication and failure rates with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns: a 10-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(3):356–364. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12066.
  44. Millen C, Bragger U, Wittneben JG. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30(1):110–124. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3607.
  45. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions–a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(Suppl.): 84–98. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1.
  46. Wijbenga JG, Schepers RH, Werker PM, et al. A systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life following reconstruction of maxillofacial defects using vascularized free fibula flaps and dental rehabilitation reveals poor data quality. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69(8):1024–1036. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.05.003.
  47. Wittneben JG, Wismeijer D, Bragger U, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures focusing on aesthetics of implant- and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(Suppl 16):224–240. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13295.
  48. Yao CJ, Cao C, Bornstein MM, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with implant-supported removable and fixed prostheses: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(Suppl. 16):241–254. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13286.
  49. Yao J, Tang H, Gao XL, et al. Patients’ expectations to dental implant: a systematic review of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:153. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-014-0153-9.
  50. Walton TR, Layton DM. Satisfaction and patient-related outcomes in 128 patients with single implant crowns in situ for up to 14 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(3):667–674. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5443.
  51. Geraets W, Zhang L, Liu Y, et al. Annual bone loss and success rates of dental implants based on radiographic measurements. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43(7):20140007. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140007.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.