Premium
Platform switching minimises crestal bone loss around dental implants: truth or myth?
Author(s) -
Romanos G. E.,
Javed F.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12189
Subject(s) - dentistry , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , medicine , alveolar ridge , maxilla , implant , abutment , dental alveolus , dental implant , orthodontics , surgery , engineering , botany , civil engineering , biology , genus
Summary The aim was to assess the role of platform switching ( PS ) in minimising crestal bone loss around dental implants through a systematic review of the currently available clinical evidence. To address the focused question ‘Does PS minimise crestal bone loss compared with non‐platform‐switched ( NPS ) implants?’, P ub M ed/ M edline and G oogle S cholar databases were explored from 1986 up to and including D ecember 2013 using the following key words in different combinations: ‘bone loss’, ‘dental implant’, ‘diameter’, ‘mandible’, ‘maxilla’ and ‘platform switching’. Letters to the E ditor, unpublished data, historical reviews, case reports and articles published in languages other than E nglish were excluded. Fifteen clinical studies were included. In seven studies, PS and NPS implants were placed in both the maxilla and mandible. In 13 studies, implants were placed at crestal bone levels whereas in one study, implants were placed supracrestally. Three studies reported the bucco‐lingual (or transversal) width of the alveolar ridge which ranged between 7–8 mm. Seven studies reported that implants placed according to the PS concept did not minimise crestal bone loss as compared with NPS implants. 3 D ‐ I mplant positioning, width of alveolar ridge and control of micromotion at the implant‐abutment interface are the more critical factors that influence crestal bone levels than PS .