Premium
Platform switching and matrix metalloproteinase‐8 levels in peri‐implant sulcular fluid
Author(s) -
Canullo Luigi,
Iannello Giuliano,
Netuschil Lutz,
Jepsen Søren
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02175.x
Subject(s) - implant , dentistry , abutment , medicine , peri , maxilla , orthodontics , surgery , civil engineering , engineering
Objectives: The concept of platform switching has been introduced to implant therapy, however long‐term data are sparse. The aim of this study was to biochemically investigate the inflammatory response mediated by MMP‐8 to platform switching after 3 years of loading, in order to understand the long‐term effect of implant/abutment mismatching on peri‐implant health. Methods: A total of 70 implants had been inserted in the posterior maxilla in 26 patients and were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment regimens (implant diameter 3.8 [control group], 4.3 [Test group 1, T 1 ], 4.8 [Test group 2, T 2 ] and 5.5 mm [Test group 3, T 3 ]). All implants were restored using a 3.8 mm abutment. In the test groups, this restoration resulted in a mismatching of 0.25–0.85 mm of implant–abutment diameters. Results: Thirty‐six months after prosthetic rehabilitation, peri‐implant sulcular fluid samples were taken from two aspects of all implants and from periodontally healthy adjacent teeth. Samples were processed in a conventional ELISA using monoclonal antibodies recognizing the active entity of MMP‐8. In the test groups, MMP‐8 mean values were 2.76 ng for T 1 (SD: 2.91), 3.30 ng for T 2 (SD: 1.94) and 3.18 ng for T 3 (SD: 2.46). For the control group, MMP‐8 mean value was 3.6 ng (SD: 2.23), whereas 3.38 ng (SD: 2.2) was recorded at the adjacent teeth. There were no statistically significant differences in MMP‐8 values between the groups ( P =0.113, Kruskal–Wallis). Conclusions: The presence of an implant/abutment mismatching specific for this prosthetic concept is compatible with long‐term peri‐implant health as demonstrated by analysis of a sensitive biomarker of the peri‐implant inflammatory response.