International journal of implant dentistry · 2025
The influence of platform switching and platform matching on marginal bone loss in immediately inserted dental implants: a retrospective clinical study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Attia Sameh, Aykanat Tugce, Chuchmová Veronika, Stolte Kim Natalie, Harder Ben, Schilling Lucas, Streckbein Philipp, Howaldt Hans-Peter, Riad Abanoub, Böttger Sebastian
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate and compare the effects of platform switching (PS) and platform matching (PM) on marginal bone loss (MBL) and clinical parameters in immediately inserted dental implants.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were included (PS group: twenty-one patients, PM group: sixteen patients), with follow-up periods ranging from six months to 23 years. MBL was measured using orthopantomograms (OPG), and implant success was evaluated using the Buser, Albrektsson, and Attia criteria. Regression analysis was conducted to assess total bone loss.
RESULTS: The BEGO RI implant system was used in 83.8% of cases. Mesial MBL averaged 0.26 mm in the PS group and 0.75 mm in the PM group, while distal MBL was 0.68 mm for the PS group and 0.53 mm for the PM group. A significant difference was observed in mesial MBL, with the PS group showing less bone loss (p. = 0.044). Regression analysis indicated that PM implants were associated with significantly greater mesial bone loss compared to PS implants (p. = 0.039). No significant differences in implant success were observed between the PS and PM groups based on the Buser score, Albrektsson criteria, and Attia score.
CONCLUSION: Both PS and PM implants showed comparable long-term functionality. No significant differences were found in total bone loss between the groups, but PS implants showed significantly lower mesial MBL. While both systems are viable for immediate implantation, PS implants may offer advantages in preserving peri-implant bone. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were included (PS group: twenty-one patients, PM group: sixteen patients), with follow-up periods ranging from six months to 23 years. MBL was measured using orthopantomograms (OPG), and implant success was evaluated using the Buser, Albrektsson, and Attia criteria. Regression analysis was conducted to assess total bone loss.
RESULTS: The BEGO RI implant system was used in 83.8% of cases. Mesial MBL averaged 0.26 mm in the PS group and 0.75 mm in the PM group, while distal MBL was 0.68 mm for the PS group and 0.53 mm for the PM group. A significant difference was observed in mesial MBL, with the PS group showing less bone loss (p. = 0.044). Regression analysis indicated that PM implants were associated with significantly greater mesial bone loss compared to PS implants (p. = 0.039). No significant differences in implant success were observed between the PS and PM groups based on the Buser score, Albrektsson criteria, and Attia score.
CONCLUSION: Both PS and PM implants showed comparable long-term functionality. No significant differences were found in total bone loss between the groups, but PS implants showed significantly lower mesial MBL. While both systems are viable for immediate implantation, PS implants may offer advantages in preserving peri-implant bone. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.