Peri‐implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing platform switching <i>versus</i> conventionally restored implants

Annibali, Susanna; Bignozzi, Isabella; Cristalli, Maria Paola; Graziani, Filippo; Monaca, Gerardo La; Polimeni, Antonella

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2012.01930.x

Cited by 154 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Actually, all parallel arm designs (as the present report) appear to demote the effect size of PS on marginal bone levels when compared to split‐mouth designs as extrapolated from Annibali et al. (2012) and Chrcanovic et al. (2015) but are less prone to incur in type I errors (incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis) due to the increased number of patients recruited (independent statistical units).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…2014, Annibali et al. 2012, Laurell & Lundgren 2011). In this sense, block randomization was done only after implant installation to avoid foreknowledge of the treatment assignment and possible tendencies to favour either group by the modification of the surgical protocol.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2010) or 0.45 mm (Annibali et al. 2012) have been to the advantage of the PS implants in parallel arm and split‐mouth trials (Canullo et al. 2010, 2009, 2011a, Fickl et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand these results fairly agree with the 0.45 mm (0.14–0.76, 95% CI) effect estimated by Annibali et al. (2012) for periods of evaluation superior to 1 year, reflecting the long‐term importance of the concept on the preservation of marginal bone levels. On the other hand, the result clearly exceeds the overall estimate for mismatches inferior to 0.45, which is 0.17 mm (0.02–0.32, 95% CI) over different follow‐up periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Rocha

Wagner

Wiltfang

et al. 2016

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveEvaluation of differences in the clinical performance and crestal bone levels between implants restored with single crowns with platform‐matched or platform‐switched abutments after 3 years.Material and MethodsThe study enrolled adult patients missing two or more adjacent teeth in the posterior mandible with natural teeth mesial to the implant site. Randomization followed open‐flap implant insertion and the corresponding matching or switching healing abutments placed at surgery. Conventional loading was made with cemented crowns. Clinical follow‐up took place annually after loading up to 3 years. Bone level changes were measured in standardized radiographs as the variation in crestal bone from one evaluation to the next.ResultsSixty‐three patients with a total of 135 implants (66 platform matching, 69 platform switching) were analysed. From surgery to 36 months, mean bone loss was 0.28 ± 0.56 mm for the platform‐switching group and 0.68 ± 0.64 mm for the platform‐matching group. A statistically significant difference was found between groups (p = 0.002) with an estimate of 0.39 mm (0.15–0.64, 95% CI) in favour of platform switching.ConclusionsAfter 3 years, platform‐switching restorations showed a significant effect in the preservation of marginal bone levels compared to platform‐matching restorations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2010) or 0.45 mm (Annibali et al. 2012) have been to the advantage of the PS implants in parallel arm and split‐mouth trials (Canullo et al. 2010, 2009, 2011a, Fickl et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Rocha

Wagner

Wiltfang

et al. 2016

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So that long term, well-conducted RCT to validate eff ect of PS is conceded even in most recently publishing review. [6][7][8] Th is systematic review was reported following the recommendations for preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 9 Th e author state clearly all details for systematic review and meta-analysis studies including implant data (number, system, hex, level, loading, and follow-up period), patients demographic data and type of radiograph used for bone loss assessment.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of platform switching on marginal peri-implant bone loss reduction : A summary review

Al-Fahd¹

2015

IDJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Question:Is there an impact of platform switching (PS) on marginal bone level changes MBL around endosseous implants compared to implants with platform-matching (PM) implant-abutment confi gurations? Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Journals at Ovid Full Text and Embase published between 2005 and June 2013. Besides manual search in the peer reviewed Germanlanguage Journal of Oral Implantology (Zeitschrift fur zahnarztliche Implantologie) or Implantologie (for both journals RCTs and PCCS were included). Study Selection: Articles that published between 2005 and 2013 that reporting comparison of MBL changes at implants with PS or PM implant-abutment confi gurations as primary outcome were selected from electronic databases with language restriction was for English or German. RCTs with a follow-up period of at least 12 months were included in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted by 2 reviewers independently with high agreement between them. A search strategy was conducted using the MeSH and search term combinations, considering the PICO format. Th e quality assessment of RCTs is performed following the recommendations by Higgins and Green (2011). Th e diff erence of the assessment results was low, resulting in a κ score of 0.923 (disagreement in four of 105 fi elds) between the reviewers. Consent was reached by discussion. Results: Regarding PCCS the total articles were 7 that were interpretate separately because of lacking of random allocation that revealing 3 studies with no signifi cance between two group whereas 3 studies reveal signifi cance diff erence between two group preferring PS (less MBL) and one study reveal a remarkable mean MBL in the PM group compared to the PS group. Whereas searching for RCTS resulting in a total of 13 that are eligible for inclusion into a meta-analysis that comprised a total of 549 patients receiving 1035 implants. Because of signifi cant degree of heterogeneity (I 2 = 96.2%) P < 0.0001 the treatment eff ects were assumed to be not homogeneous among the studies, and a random eff ects model for combining eff ects of all studies was applied. Th e meta-analysis result was reveal a signifi cantly less mean MBL change (0.49 mm CI95% [0.38; 0.60]) at PS implants compared to PM implants (1.01 mm (CI95% 0.62; 1.40) [P < 0.0001]) on an implantbased analysis. Funnel-plot calculation showed no asymmetry (P = 0.733), and therefore, no publication bias. Conclusion: Only two studies with a low risk of bias. All other studies revealed a tendency of a high risk of bias, resulting in an overall unclear and high risk of bias across studies. So, the author recommend for further research to overcome all these previous limitations and for providing more evidence research on the eff ect of PS on MBL.

show abstract

A Systematic Approach to Definitive Planning and Designing Single and Multiple Unit Implant Abutments

Karunagaran

Markose

Paprocki

et al. 2015

Journal of Prosthodontics on Dental Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri‐implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants

Abstract: PS technique appeared to be useful in limiting bone resorption. Nevertheless, these data should be interpreted cautiously as significant heterogeneity and possible publication bias were noted. Further research is needed to identify the factors most associated with successful outcomes.

Cited by 154 publications

References 46 publications

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Value of platform switching on marginal peri-implant bone loss reduction : A summary review

A Systematic Approach to Definitive Planning and Designing Single and Multiple Unit Implant Abutments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About