Annals of African Medicine
Home About AAM Editorial board Ahead of print Current Issue Archives Instructions Subscribe Contact us Search Login 


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-6  

Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: A systematic review


1 Department of Periodontology and Implantology, MMCDSR, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
2 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, MMCDSR, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
3 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Patna Dental college and Hospital, Patna, India
4 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, SGT Dental College and Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, India
5 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, IDS, Sum hospital, Bhubaneswar, India
6 Department of Public Health Dentistry, IDS, Sum hospital, Bhubaneswar, India

Date of Web Publication5-Feb-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shivangi Gupta
MMCDSR, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_15_18

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: The overall success of dental implants depends on the crestal bone support around the implants. During the initial years of dental implant placement, the bone loss around the implants determines the success rate of treatment. Platform switching (PLS) concept preserves the crestal bone loss, and this approach should be applied clinically for the overall success of dental implants. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to discuss the literature dealing with the concept of PLS concept and preservation of marginal bone, the mechanism by which it contributes to maintenance of marginal bone, its clinical applications, advantages, and disadvantages, to assess its survival rates. Materials and Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar search was done to find out the studies involving PLS concept from 2005 to 2017. Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Results: Literature search revealed studies involving concepts of PLS, comparison of platform-switched and nonplatform-switched implants, case reports on PLS, and studies with histological and finite element analyses regarding PLS. Conclusion: PLS helps preserve crestal bone around the implants, and this concept should be followed when clinical situations in implant placement permit.

   Abstract in French 

Résumé
Contexte: Le succès global des implants dentaires dépend du support osseux crestal autour des implants. Au cours des premières années de la pose des implants dentaires, la perte osseuse autour des implants détermine le taux de réussite du traitement. Concept de commutation de plate-forme (PLS) préserve la perte osseuse crestale, et cette approche devrait être appliquée cliniquement pour le succès global des implants dentaires. But: le Le but de cette étude est de discuter de la littérature traitant du concept de concept PLS et de la préservation de l'os marginal, du mécanisme par lequel il contribue au maintien de l'os marginal, ses applications cliniques, ses avantages et ses inconvénients, pour évaluer ses taux de survie. Matériels et méthodes: La recherche PubMed et Google Scholar a été effectuée pour trouver les études impliquant le concept PLS de 2005 à 2017. Les données ont été analysées à l'aide du logiciel statistique SPSS. Résultats: La recherche documentaire a révélé des études impliquant des concepts de PLS, la comparaison de implants à commutation de plates-formes et à commutation de plates-formes, rapports de cas sur PLS et études avec analyses histologiques et d'éléments finis concernant PLS. Conclusion: PLS aide à préserver l'os crestal autour des implants, et ce concept doit être suivi lorsque des situations cliniques dans l'implant permis de placement.

Keywords: Crestal bone, dental implants, platform switching


How to cite this article:
Gupta S, Sabharwal R, Nazeer J, Taneja L, Choudhury BK, Sahu S. Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: A systematic review. Ann Afr Med 2019;18:1-6

How to cite this URL:
Gupta S, Sabharwal R, Nazeer J, Taneja L, Choudhury BK, Sahu S. Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: A systematic review. Ann Afr Med [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 7];18:1-6. Available from: http://www.annalsafrmed.org/text.asp?2019/18/1/1/251580




   Introduction Top


The overall success of dental implant depends on the presence of good amount and quality of bone around the implants, especially the crestal bone. However, early peri-implant bone loss has been commonly observed. Adell et al.[1] were the first to quantify the marginal bone loss during the 1st year of prosthetic loading.

Initial crestal bone loss results in increased bacterial accumulation and secondary peri-implantitis which can further result in loss of bone support, which in turn can lead to occlusal overload and crestal bone loss ultimately resulting in implant failure. Further marginal bone loss affects the gingival contours and in turn results in loss of interproximal papilla.[2]

Albrektsson et al.[3] found that the installation of two-piece implants healing in a submerged modality resulted in a crestal bone loss of 1.5–2.0 mm after 1 year of loading. Moreover, in experimental studies in dogs, a crestal bone remodeling with a resorption of 2 mm has been verified.[3] Clinicians, researchers, and implant companies have, thus, dedicated time to finding ways to control the crestal bone loss that occurs after abutment connection.

At the Toronto Conference,[4] the consensus with respect to bone loss around the implant was that bone loss of up to approximately 2 mm during the 1st year of implant function is acceptable, and at this level, the implant is regarded as successful. There have been many reports on studies to ascertain the causes of bone loss around implants and clinical techniques to prevent it. Some of the published reports state that the platform switching (PLS) technique, a technique in which an abutment that is one size smaller than the implant platform is placed which prevents bone loss around the implant.[5],[6] Such a connection shifts the perimeter of the implant-abutment junction (IAJ) inward toward the central axis of the implant. The crestal bone loss can be reduced by repositioning the outer edge of the implant-abutment interface horizontally inward and away from the outer edge of the implant platform.

Therefore, crestal bone preservation should be thought of even before the treatment planning for implant placement. Various approaches have been described in the literature to prevent the crestal bone loss. PLS is one of them. This paper, therefore, reviewed the literature regarding PLS and its impact on the crestal bone.


   Materials and Methods Top


PubMed and Google Scholar search was done to find out the studies related to PLS for crestal bone preservation. A literature search was done from 2005 to 2017. Keywords used for the search were “crestal bone preservation,” “crestal bone loss,” “PLS,” “small diameter abutments, “immediate implant placement and PLS,” and “loading in implants.”

Exclusion criteria

  1. Unpublished papers, letters to the editor, historical reviews, and case reports published in languages other than English
  2. Studies with no results
  3. Studies for which the abstracts were only available and the full article was yet to be published.


Statistical analysis

The collected data were revised, coded, tabulated, and introduced to a PC using Statistical Package for Scientific Studies for Windows SPSS 20, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA. Comparison between two quantitative variables was carried out by unpaired Student's t-test for independent samples. The different experimental times were compared using analysis of variance test. A value of P = 0.05 or less was considered for statistical significance.


   Results Top


Platform switching and crestal bone loss

The concept of PLS has been considered in various articles including case reports and original studies.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] These case reports and some clinical findings suggested preservation of the peri-implant crestal bone and superior soft-tissue conditions around PLS implants. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding the biological mechanism by which this is achieved. It is necessary to clarify the causal relationship and mechanism of prevention of crestal bone resorption around PLS implants. A certain level of stable bone around the implant neck is a prerequisite for achieving support and long-lasting, optimal, and stable gingival contours. In clinical settings, the incorporation of the PLS concept into the implant treatment and an understanding of the biologic width facilitates the preservation of crestal bone. Ericsson et al.[13] indicated that bone is always encircled by approximately 1 mm of healthy connective tissue, so it can be assumed that crestal bone remodeling takes place to create space between the bone and inflammatory cell tissue (ICT) to establish a biological seal.

PLS refers to the use of a smaller diameter abutment on a larger diameter implant collar. This type of connection shifts the perimeter of the IAJ inward toward the central axis of the implant. Lazzara and Porter[6] have hypothesized that shifting the IAJ inward also shifts the inflammatory cell infiltrate inward and away from the crestal bone.

In short, (1) inward movement of the IAJ is believed to shift the inflammatory cell infiltrate toward the central axis of the implant and away from the adjacent crestal bone; (2) connective tissue thickens laterally, which increases blood flow around that area; and (3) ICT is confined above the level of the implant platform. These changes protect crestal bone (i.e., bone around the implant shoulder) from ICT. As a result, the biologic width does not decrease to cover up the ICT (i.e., to establish a biological seal), and as such, there is no bone remodeling (i.e., crestal bone loss).[14]

As of July 2009, there are nine reports on humans studies[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] [Table 1] with respect to the effect of PLS in the prevention of early bone loss. Most of these reports conclude that PLS has a positive effect on the preservation of crestal bone loss. In the studies in humans, bone loss around the top of the implant was measured by means of digital X-ray, and the longest observation period was approximately 2 years. The Biomet 3i implant system was used in the majority of the studies (6 of the 9 reports). It was Biomet 3i that established the concept of PLS.
Table 1: Studies relating the platform switching and bone loss

Click here to view


Immediate implant placement

Canullo et al.[15] reported on short-term bone level response around single, immediately placed and provisionalized PLS implants (maxillary only) using data from two different sites. The mean follow-up period was 25 months, and the average bone resorption level in the PLS group (0.3 ± 0.16 mm) was smaller than that in the non-PLS group (1.19 ± 0.35 mm), and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.005).

Calvo-Guirado et al.[16] also reported on bone level response around single, immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the anterior region and first premolar of maxillae. The mean follow-up period was 12 months, and the average mesial and distal aspect bone resorption level in the PLS group was 0.08 ± 0.53 mm and 0.09 ± 0.65 mm, respectively. There was no control group in this study, and the data used were from one site only. The authors concluded that minimal crestal bone resorption was recorded and altered when the PLS technique was used.

Canullo and Rasperini[21] evaluated soft- and hard-tissue responses to single, immediately placed and provisionalized PLS implants in the anterior and posterior regions of maxillae. Bone resorption around the implants was 0.78 ± 0.36 mm, which is significantly lower than the mean reference value of 1.7 mm. Notably, in this report, the mean values of bone resorption were compared to mean reference values instead of a control group. This study suggests that single, immediately placed and provisionalized implants (maxillary only) using the PLS technique can provide peri-implant hard tissue stability with soft tissue and papillae preservation during the 18–36-month follow-up period.

Baumgarten et al.[24] described the PLS technique and its use in situations requiring shorter implants, where implants are placed in esthetic zones, and where a larger implant is desirable but prosthetic space is limited. They also stated that a sufficient tissue depth (approximately 3 mm or more) is necessary to accommodate an adequate biologic width. They concluded that PLS helps in preventing the anticipated bone loss and also preserve crestal bone.

Gardner[5] discussed the changes that occur when an implant is placed in the bone and presented a case study using platform-switched implants. He described that PLS can limit osseous and esthetic changes around the implants. Although PLS can effectively control circumferential bone loss around dental implants, he concluded that this concept needed further investigation. Furthermore, he noted several disadvantages such as the need for components with similar designs (the screw access hole must be uniform) and the need for enough space to develop a proper emergence profile.

Comparison of platform- and nonplatform-switched implants

Salamanca et al. conducted a study to observe the changes in vertical and horizontal marginal bone levels in platform-switched and platform-matched dental implants in 51 patients who received 60 dental implants over a period of 1 year. Measurement was performed between the implant shoulder and the most apical and horizontal marginal defect by periapical radiographs to examine the changes of peri-implant alveolar bone before and 12 months after prosthodontic restoration delivery. These marginal bone measurements showed a bone gain of 0.23 ± 0.58 mm in the vertical gap and 0.22 ± 0.53 mm in the horizontal gap of platform matching, while in PLS, a bone gain of 0.93 ± 1 mm (P < 0.05) in the vertical gap and 0.50 ± 0.56 mm in the horizontal gap was found. It was concluded that PLS seemed to be more effective for a better peri-implant alveolar bone vertical and horizontal gap reduction at 1 year.[25]

Hürzeler et al.[22] compared crestal bone loss around platform-switched and nonplatform-switched implants. They found that the mean crestal bone loss was 0.22 mm in platform-switched implants and 2.02 mm in nonplatform-switched implants. They also concluded that reduction of the abutment of 0.45 mm on each side is sufficient to avoid peri-implant bone loss. Another study by Cappiello et al.[20] found that vertical bone loss for the platform-switched cases varied between 0.6 and 1.2 mm (mean: 0.95 ± 0.32 mm), while for the cases without PLS, the bone loss was between 1.3 and 2.1 mm (mean: 1.67 ± 0.37 mm). An average of 1–2 mm of bone loss occurs in nonplatform-switched implants, while minimal bone loss occurs in platform-switched implants. Thus, all preliminary evidences in literature suggest that the anticipated bone loss that occurs around two-stage hexed implants may be reduced or eliminated when implants are restored with smaller diameter abutments, a practice termed as “PLS.”

Platform switching effect with respect to interimplant distance

Rodriquez-Ciurana et al.[18] evaluated adjacent PLS implants placed <3 mm apart to determine whether they demonstrated less three-dimensional bone resorption than that previously reported around non-PLS implants.

The study used 41 pairs (adjacent placement) of implants and measured horizontal and vertical bone resorption as well as bone peak. Mean vertical bone resorption was 0.62 mm, and horizontal bone resorption was 0.60 mm. The bone peak extended coronally (0.24 mm) beyond an imaginary line connecting the two implant/abutment interfaces. The authors concluded that the PLS technique can help to preserve peri-implant bone and retain the interproximal bone peak compared to conventional (non-PLS) implant restorations.

Finite element analysis

As of July 2009, there are five finite element analysis (FEA)-related reports with respect to PLS.[26],[27],[28],[29],[30]

The implant models used in FEA could be classified into two groups based on abutment joint type, namely, butt joint (e.g., Replace Select and 3i threaded implant) and taper joint (e.g., Straumann, ASTRA, and Ankylos). Many of these studies examined vertical and diagonal loads on implants. The angles of the diagonal loads were between 158 and 308, and the loads were between 10 N and 250 N, which is a wide range.

The objectives of the reports varied slightly: Canay and Akça[26] examined stress distribution in abutments of Ankylos implants of different diameters and emergence profiles.

In all Ankylos implants, the diameter of the abutment is smaller than that of the implant platform, and as such, their design is based on the PLS concept (in other words, there was no control). By contrast, Schrotenboer et al.[27] and Maeda et al.[30] simply evaluated the biomechanical advantages of implants with butt joints in relation to PLS.


   Discussion Top


In the current study, over a period of almost a year, it could be demonstrated that implants restored according to the PLS concept experienced significantly less marginal bone loss than implants with matching implant abutment diameters.

Having reviewed the available literature, it has been confirmed that PLS is a major contributing factor in limiting crestal bone resorption. Certain biological width is necessary to maintain the soft tissues and hard tissues. In PLS, the IAJ is shifted inward. This will not only shift the inflammatory infiltrate inward away from the crestal bone but also provide an additional horizontal biological width, hence preserving the crestal bone. At the same time, the microgap is shifted away from the crestal bone, decreasing the probability of resorption.[31]

The etiology of bone remodeling was believed to be dependent on the localized inflammation of the peri-implant soft tissue.[32]

This view was been supported, especially in view of the microgap at the IAJ inflammatory cell infiltrate of the abutment, where it is always possible to detect bacterial infiltration, as reported by Jansen et al.[33]

This infiltrate was extended vertically for about 0.5–0.75 mm coronal to the IAJ and 0.5–0.75 apical to the IAJ. The ICT never ended in contact with the bone but was separated from it by an approximately 1 mm wide layer of healthy connective tissue.

More recently, Warren et al.[34] reported that crestal bone resorption of 1.0–1.5 mm may occur almost immediately after implant loading. These findings are in accordance with the results of other authors Weng et al.[35]

The PLS concept is a recent approach which focused on controlling or decreasing the horizontal component of the bone loss; it refers to the use of a smaller diameter abutment on a larger diameter implant platform. Such a connection shifts the perimeter of the IAJ inward toward the central axis of the implant to preserve marginal bone from stress concentration. It is also believed that inward movement of IAJ shifts the inflammatory cell infiltration to the central axis of the implant and away from the adjacent crestal bone which is thought to restrict crestal bone resorption. Moreover, crestal bone loss and soft tissue stability are influenced by the abutment collar length which controls the final crown margin location and the subsequent esthetic outcome.[6],[36]

All studies comparing the platform-switched and nonplatform-switched implants suggested that platform switched implants result in lesser marginal bone resorption.

Implant-abutment interface is a very important criterion for implant success. PLS increases the distance between IAJ and the crestal bone, thereby increasing microgap to crestal bone distance, hence preserving the crestal bone, but it does not affect the width of the microgap. Precision fit of implant-abutment connection in Morse taper or internal hex implants offers an additional advantage of reduced microgap. Hence, the introduction of combination of Morse taper connection and PLS can be a boon to implant dentistry.

One study reported that peri-implant probing around implant is a good prediction of crestal bone loss.[37] In addition, there is scientific evidence of correlation between the levels of the bone at the probing penetration.[37],[38]


   Conclusion Top


The concept of crestal bone loss around the implant plays an important role for the overall success rate. PLS helps to prevent the bone loss around the implants, and thus this concept can be used in clinical practice.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Tarnow DP, Magner AW, Fletcher P. The effect of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence or absence of the interproximal dental papilla. J Periodontol 1992;63:995-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria for success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11e25.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Consensus report: Towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:641.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Gardner DM. Platform switching as a means to achieving implant esthetics. N Y State Dent J 2005;71:34-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: A new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hermann F, Lerner H, Palti A. Factors influencing the preservation of the periimplant marginal bone. Implant Dent 2007;16:165-75.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Degidi M, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded titanium implant with a tissue-stabilizing/maintaining design ('beyond platform switch') retrieved from man after 4 weeks: A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation. A case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:276-82.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Landolt M, Blatz M. The concept of platform switching. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2008;20:55.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Chang J. Platform switching. J Mass Dent Soc 2008;57:40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Romanos GE, Nentwig GH. Immediate loading using cross-arch fixed restorations in heavy smokers: Nine consecutive case reports for edentulous arches. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:513-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Simonpieri A, Del Corso M, Sammartino G, Dohan Ehrenfest DM. The relevance of Choukroun's platelet-rich fibrin and metronidazole during complex maxillary rehabilitations using bone allograft. Part II: Implant surgery, prosthodontics, and survival. Implant Dent 2009;18:220-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B, et al. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:255-61.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hagiwara Y. Does platform switching really prevent crestal bone loss around implants? Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2010;46:122-31.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Canullo L, Goglia G, Iurlaro G, Iannello G. Short-term bone level observations associated with platform switching in immediately placed and restored single maxillary implants: A preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:277-82.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Calvo-Guirado JL, Ortiz-Ruiz AJ, López-Marí L, Delgado-Ruiz R, Maté-Sánchez J, Bravo Gonzalez LA, et al. Immediate maxillary restoration of single-tooth implants using platform switching for crestal bone preservation: A 12-month study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:275-81.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:299-308.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Rodríguez-Ciurana X, Vela-Nebot X, Segalà -Torres M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Cambra J, Méndez-Blanco V, et al. The effect of interimplant distance on the height of the interimplant bone crest when using platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009;29:141-51.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Calvo Guirado JL, Ortiz Ruiz AJ, Gómez Moreno G, López Marí L, Bravo González LA. Immediate loading and immediate restoration in 105 expanded-platform implants via the diem system after a 16-month follow-up period. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008;13:E576-81.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R, et al. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:347-55.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Canullo L, Rasperini G. Preservation of peri-implant soft and hard tissues using platform switching of implants placed in immediate extraction sockets: A proof-of-concept study with 12- to 36-month follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:995-1000.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Hürzeler M, Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel HC. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments: Preliminary data from a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:33-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Calvo Guirado JL, Saez Yuguero MR, Pardo Zamora G, Muñoz Barrio E. Immediate provisionalization on a new implant design for esthetic restoration and preserving crestal bone. Implant Dent 2007;16:155-64.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Baumgarten H, Cocchetto R, Testori T, Meltzer A, Porter S. A new implant design for crestal bone preservation: Initial observations and case report. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005;17:735-40.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Salamanca E, Lin JC, Tsai CY, Hsu YS, Huang HM, Teng NC, et al. Dental implant surrounding marginal bone level evaluation: Platform switching versus platform matching-one-year retrospective study. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:7191534.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Canay S, Akça K. Biomechanical aspects of bone-level diameter shifting at implant-abutment interface. Implant Dent 2009;18:239-48.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Schrotenboer J, Tsao YP, Kinariwala V, Wang HL. Effect of platform switching on implant crest bone stress: A finite element analysis. Implant Dent 2009;18:260-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:422-31.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Schrotenboer J, Tsao YP, Kinariwala V, Wang HL. Effect of microthreads and platform switching on crestal bone stress levels: A finite element analysis. J Periodontol 2008;79:2166-72.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: Is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:581-4.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Prasad DK, Shetty M, Bansal N, Hegde C. Platform switching: An answer to crestal bone loss. J Dent Implants 2011;1:13-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P, et al. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:527-40.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Warren P, Chaffee N, Felton DA, Cooper LF. A retrospective radiographic analysis of bone loss following placement of TiO2 grit-blasted implants in the posterior maxilla and mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:399-404.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bell M, Bosco AF, de Melo LG, Richter EJ, et al. Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1141-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ahmeda KM, Elfatah SA, Katamish MA. Crestal bone loss of standard implant versus platform switch implant design using minimal invasive technique. Future Dent J 2016;2:74-9.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104-11.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Brägger U, Hugel-Pisoni C, Bürgin W, Buser D, Lang NP. Correlations between radiographic, clinical and mobility parameters after loading of oral implants with fixed partial dentures. A 2-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:230-9.  Back to cited text no. 38
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1668    
    Printed151    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded2    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal