Premium
Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: preliminary results of 18 months follow‐up a prospective randomized match‐paired controlled trial
Author(s) -
Canullo Luigi,
Iannello Giuliano,
Penarocha Miguel,
Garcia Berta
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.1600-0501.2011.02297.x
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , abutment , wilcoxon signed rank test , bone resorption , radiography , orthodontics , osseointegration , surgery , mann–whitney u test , civil engineering , engineering
Objective This prospective randomized match‐paired controlled trial aimed to evaluate the impact of implant platform diameter on marginal bone level around implants restored according to the platform switching ( PS ) concept. Material and methods A total of 24 implants were examined in 12 patients. All patients received two adjacent implants inserted at the crestal level: 4.3 mm (control group) and 4.8 mm (test group) in diameter. Mesio‐distal implant position was randomly performed. According to the PS concept, for restoration, a 3.8 and 4.3 mm diameter abutment was used, respectively in the control and test groups, resulting, in both groups, with 0.25 mm of implant/abutment mismatching. Implant restorations were splinted. Eighteen months after final restoration, periapical standardized digital radiographs were taken to evaluate marginal bone level alterations after loading. The W ilcoxon S igned‐ R ank T est was selected to identify differences between groups. Results At the last follow‐up, control implants exhibited a mean bone loss value of 1.10 mm ( SD : 0.47 mm); the test group showed a mean value of 1.09 mm ( SD : 0.08 mm) . No statistically significant differences were found between test and control groups. Conclusions Within the limits of this study, the present results suggest that bone resorption is mostly related to biologic (biologic width re‐establishment) rather than to biomechanical factors (implant platform diameter). Furthermore long‐term studies with a wider sample size are needed to confirm the platform diameter influence on hard tissue response around implants restored according to the PS concept.