Comparative Study by Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Peri-Implant Effect of Two Types of Platforms: Platform-Switching versus Conventional Platforms.
dental implants
meta-analysis
prosthetic platform change
randomized clinical trials
vertical bone loss
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Mar 2022
21 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
16
02
2022
revised:
11
03
2022
accepted:
16
03
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
26
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis carried out was to evaluate the effects of changing the prosthetic platform on peri-implant tissue after 1 year of prosthetic loading. In November 2020, an electronic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases with the aim of obtaining all the randomized clinical trials that had been published in the preceding 10 years comparing the effects on the peri-implant tissue of implants with a prosthetic platform change and implants with a conventional platform for at least 1 year after prosthetic loading. Randomized model meta-analyses of the selected studies were performed to compare the results of the two implant groups in terms of vertical maintenance of bone level and increased probing depth. Nine studies were included, summing up a total of 475 implants with prosthetic platform exchange and 462 implants with a conventional platform. Implants with prosthetic platform exchange had less peri-implant bone loss than implants with a conventional platform (mean difference of 0.255 mm, statistically significant) but suffered a greater increase in probing depth (mean difference of 0.082 mm, not statistically significant). However, the probing depth from One Study Remove revealed a statistically significant increase of 0.190 mm in the prosthetic platform exchange group compared to the conventional platform group. Implants with platform switching suffer less peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of loading than implants with a conventional platform. Further long-term studies are required to observe how these differences vary over time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35330067
pii: jcm11061743
doi: 10.3390/jcm11061743
pmc: PMC8954366
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Feb;22(1):59-68
pubmed: 31808297
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Mar/Apr;33(2):448-456
pubmed: 29534134
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):9-17
pubmed: 16515092
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:69-77
pubmed: 30328189
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):e9-e24
pubmed: 28095526
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25
pubmed: 3527955
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Spring;7(1):47-61
pubmed: 24892113
J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Nov;39(11):1097-113
pubmed: 22931292
J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):609-17
pubmed: 19335081
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Dec;122(6):516-536
pubmed: 31421892
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Feb;16(1):70-80
pubmed: 22577959
Indian J Dent Res. 2019 Jul-Aug;30(4):600-611
pubmed: 31745060
J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Jul;39(7):688-97
pubmed: 22540412
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Nov/Dec;32(6):1296-1307
pubmed: 29140374
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Dec;24(12):1316-24
pubmed: 22957911
J Oral Rehabil. 2012 Nov;39(11):830-7
pubmed: 22889084
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Mar;26(3):342-58
pubmed: 24438506
J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S267-S290
pubmed: 29926957
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):141-151
pubmed: 28000276
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Oct 3;34(1):179–186
pubmed: 30282088
J Oral Implantol. 2020 Apr 1;46(2):153-162
pubmed: 31905050
J Clin Periodontol. 2017 Mar;44(3):326-336
pubmed: 27883203
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Jul;105(7):2075-2089
pubmed: 28281321
J Clin Periodontol. 2014 May;41(5):521-9
pubmed: 24829969