The influence of platform switching and platform matching on marginal bone loss in immediately inserted dental implants: a retrospective clinical study.
Sameh Attia, Tugce Aykanat, Veronika Chuchmová, Kim Natalie Stolte, Ben Harder, Lucas Schilling, Philipp Streckbein, Hans-Peter Howaldt, Abanoub Riad, Sebastian Böttger
{"title":"The influence of platform switching and platform matching on marginal bone loss in immediately inserted dental implants: a retrospective clinical study.","authors":"Sameh Attia, Tugce Aykanat, Veronika Chuchmová, Kim Natalie Stolte, Ben Harder, Lucas Schilling, Philipp Streckbein, Hans-Peter Howaldt, Abanoub Riad, Sebastian Böttger","doi":"10.1186/s40729-025-00604-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate and compare the effects of platform switching (PS) and platform matching (PM) on marginal bone loss (MBL) and clinical parameters in immediately inserted dental implants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-seven patients were included (PS group: twenty-one patients, PM group: sixteen patients), with follow-up periods ranging from six months to 23 years. MBL was measured using orthopantomograms (OPG), and implant success was evaluated using the Buser, Albrektsson, and Attia criteria. Regression analysis was conducted to assess total bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BEGO RI implant system was used in 83.8% of cases. Mesial MBL averaged 0.26 mm in the PS group and 0.75 mm in the PM group, while distal MBL was 0.68 mm for the PS group and 0.53 mm for the PM group. A significant difference was observed in mesial MBL, with the PS group showing less bone loss (p. = 0.044). Regression analysis indicated that PM implants were associated with significantly greater mesial bone loss compared to PS implants (p. = 0.039). No significant differences in implant success were observed between the PS and PM groups based on the Buser score, Albrektsson criteria, and Attia score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PS and PM implants showed comparable long-term functionality. No significant differences were found in total bone loss between the groups, but PS implants showed significantly lower mesial MBL. While both systems are viable for immediate implantation, PS implants may offer advantages in preserving peri-implant bone. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14076,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Implant Dentistry","volume":"11 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Implant Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-025-00604-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate and compare the effects of platform switching (PS) and platform matching (PM) on marginal bone loss (MBL) and clinical parameters in immediately inserted dental implants.
Methods: Thirty-seven patients were included (PS group: twenty-one patients, PM group: sixteen patients), with follow-up periods ranging from six months to 23 years. MBL was measured using orthopantomograms (OPG), and implant success was evaluated using the Buser, Albrektsson, and Attia criteria. Regression analysis was conducted to assess total bone loss.
Results: The BEGO RI implant system was used in 83.8% of cases. Mesial MBL averaged 0.26 mm in the PS group and 0.75 mm in the PM group, while distal MBL was 0.68 mm for the PS group and 0.53 mm for the PM group. A significant difference was observed in mesial MBL, with the PS group showing less bone loss (p. = 0.044). Regression analysis indicated that PM implants were associated with significantly greater mesial bone loss compared to PS implants (p. = 0.039). No significant differences in implant success were observed between the PS and PM groups based on the Buser score, Albrektsson criteria, and Attia score.
Conclusion: Both PS and PM implants showed comparable long-term functionality. No significant differences were found in total bone loss between the groups, but PS implants showed significantly lower mesial MBL. While both systems are viable for immediate implantation, PS implants may offer advantages in preserving peri-implant bone. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
期刊介绍：
The International Journal of Implant Dentistry is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the SpringerOpen brand. The journal is dedicated to promoting the exchange and discussion of all research areas relevant to implant dentistry in the form of systematic literature or invited reviews, prospective and retrospective clinical studies, clinical case reports, basic laboratory and animal research, and articles on material research and engineering.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
