Article
Cover
RJDS Journal Cover Page

RGUHS Nat. J. Pub. Heal. Sci Vol No: 16 Issue No: 3   pISSN: 

Article Submission Guidelines

Dear Authors,
We invite you to watch this comprehensive video guide on the process of submitting your article online. This video will provide you with step-by-step instructions to ensure a smooth and successful submission.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Review Article
Bhavya B*,1, Umesh Y2, Vineeta Shaji3,

1M.S.Ramaiah Dental College and Hospital MSRIT Post, Mathikere M.S.R.Nagar Bangalore- 560054

2Postgraduate student, Department of Periodontics, M.S. Ramaiah Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

3Professor, Department of Periodontics, Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

*Corresponding Author:

M.S.Ramaiah Dental College and Hospital MSRIT Post, Mathikere M.S.R.Nagar Bangalore- 560054, Email: bhavyashetty@rediffmail.com
Received Date: 2015-04-12,
Accepted Date: 2015-05-23,
Published Date: 2015-07-31
Year: 2015, Volume: 7, Issue: 2, Page no. 32-38,
Views: 1025, Downloads: 18
Licensing Information:
CC BY NC 4.0 ICON
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0.
Abstract

The prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous areas in the mouth by implants is widely practiced in dentistry. In order for the implants to be stable and survive for long periods in the mouth, marginal bone loss around the implants have to be evaluated to have a successful clinical outcome. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone loss (MBL) after prosthetic loading is considered one important criterion to evaluate clinical outcome. Platform switching is a tried and tested concept in which smaller diameter abutments are used to rehabilitate wide diameter implants. In this concept the inward positioning of the inter-implant junction away from the inflammatory infiltrate forming between the soft tissue and the bone helps in preservation of marginal bone. This prevents the implant from being subject to crestal bone loss and being able to establish a good biologic width thereby ensuring long term implant survival. This review focuses on the various aspects of platform switching and how it is beneficial to implant survival.

<p>The prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous areas in the mouth by implants is widely practiced in dentistry. In order for the implants to be stable and survive for long periods in the mouth, marginal bone loss around the implants have to be evaluated to have a successful clinical outcome. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone loss (MBL) after prosthetic loading is considered one important criterion to evaluate clinical outcome. Platform switching is a tried and tested concept in which smaller diameter abutments are used to rehabilitate wide diameter implants. In this concept the inward positioning of the inter-implant junction away from the inflammatory infiltrate forming between the soft tissue and the bone helps in preservation of marginal bone. This prevents the implant from being subject to crestal bone loss and being able to establish a good biologic width thereby ensuring long term implant survival. This review focuses on the various aspects of platform switching and how it is beneficial to implant survival.</p>
Keywords
Platform switching, crestal bone loss, microgap
Downloads
  • 1
    FullTextPDF
Article

INTRODUCTION

Implants are the most sought after treatment options in modern day dentistry for replacement of missing teeth. A successful implant restoration must include aesthetics and function surrounded by healthy peri-implant tissues. Peri-implant bone level has been used as one of the criteria to assess the success of dental implants.

The peri-implant bone remodelling occurs once the implant is exposed to the oral environment in a second surgical procedure or when the abutment is placed immediately after implant placement. Over the years, attempts have been made to prevent or reduce marginal bone loss through modification of the implant-abutment connection.

ETIOLOGY OF MARGINAL BONE LOSS

Traditionally, a Radiographic marginal bone loss of 1.5 mm during the first year followed by a radiographic marginal bone loss of 0.2 mm during each suceeding year is an important parameter for the assessment of implant success1. After insertion of the implant into the bone , bone remodelling occurs via coupling mechanisms: bone resorption and depostion.

Crestal bone levels are typically located approximately 1.5-2 mm below the implant-abutment junction (IAJ) at 1 year following implant restoration but are dependent upon the location of the IAJ relative to bony crest2. However, the connection between implant fixture and its restorative abutment is termed the implant abutment interface (IAI) or “microgap”. In most cases, it is susceptible to micro movements during clinical function and also permits micro-leakage of fluids3.

Marginal bone loss around implants occur due to various reasons 1) a traumatic surgical technique4; 2) excessive loading conditions5; 3) the location, shape, and size of the implant abutment microgap and its microbial contamination6; 4) the biologic width and soft tissue considerations6,7; 5)a peri-implant inflammatory infiltrate8 ; 6)micro movements of the implant and prosthetic components9; 7) repeated screwing and unscrewing10,11; 8) the implant-neck geometry6,12; and 9) the infectious process13,14.

HISTORYOFPLATORM SWITCHING

Historically two-piece dental implant systems have been restored with prosthetic components that locate the interface between implant and attached component element at the outer edge of the implant platform. In 1991, Implant Innovations introduced wide diameter implants with matching wide diameter platforms. When introduced however matching diameter prosthetic components were not available and many of the early 5.0 and 6.0 mm wide implants received standard diameter 4.1 mm prosthetic components. Long term radiographic follow up of these platform switched implant restored wide diameter implants has demonstrated a smaller than expected vertical change in the crestal bone height around these implants than is typically observed around implants restored conventionally with prosthetic components of matching diameters.15

Several clinical reports16-18 demonstrated more favorable soft and hard tissue responses using implants placed with platform switching compared to standard platform-matched implants.

BIOMECHANICAL RATIONALE BEHIND PLATFORM SWITCHING

Platform switching helps to prevent crestal bone loss after implant placement and helps obtain satisfactory aesthetic results23. The biomechanical rationale behind platform switching was investigated by 3D finite element analysis by Maeda et al24 . They reported that the stress level in the cervical bone area at the implant was greatly reduced when the narrow diameter abutment was connected compared with the regular-sized one. Within the limitations of this study, it was suggested that the platform swit ching configuration has the biomechanical advantage of shifting the stress concentration area away from the cervical bone–implant interface. It also has the disadvantage of increasing stress in the abutment or 8 abutment screw. Ericsson et al showed that (i) the bone crest consistently was located about 1-1.5 mm "apical" of the abutment/fixture level, (ii) there was a zone, about 1 mm wide, of a normal noninfiltrated connective tissue that separated the apical portion of the abutment ICT and the bone crest. It is suggested that this infiltrate represents the efforts by the host to close off bacteria present within the implant system and that the establishment of an abutment ICT may explain the 1 mm bone loss observed during the course of the 1st year after bridge installation.

There is a lateral component to bone loss once the biologic width has formed especially in a 2-stage implant. The clinical significance of crestal bone loss is that it results in increase in the distance between base of the contact points between adjacent crowns and crest of bone. Hence to prevent lateral bone loss there should be a minimum inter-implant distance of 3mm or more25.

PLATFROM SWITCHING AND PERI-IMPLANT MICROBIOTA

An implant-abutment interface at the alveolar bone crest is associated with sustained periimplant inflammation. The presence of the peri-implant microbiota was suggested to influence the crestal bone resorption by maintaining the inflammatory cell infiltrate within the IAJ.11,26 On the contrary, Canullo et al reported that difference in bone crest resorption between implants restored with platform switching compared to traditionally restored implants is not associated with differences in the peri-implant microbiota.27

PLATFROM SWITCHING AND PERI-IMPLANT INFLAMMATORY INFILTRATE

Regardless of the nature of the peri-implant inflammatory infiltrate, the physical repositioning of the IAJ away from the external outer edge of the implant and neighboring bone may limit bone resorption by containing the inflammatory cell infiltrate within the angle formed at the interface away from the adjacent crestal bone15.

MICROGAP AND MICROTHREADS

The connection between implant fixture and its restorative abutment is termed the implant 3 abutment interface or “microgap”. Bone remodelling around the implant does not occur unless the implant has been exposed to the oral environment and the oral fluids. Exposure invariably leads to bacterial contamination of the gap between the implant and superstructure12. many studies12-14 have indicated that bacterial contamination of the micro-gap between the implant and the abutment adversely affects the stability of the peri-implant tissue. If above-average axial forces are exerted on the implant, it may cause a pumping effect, resulting in a flow of bacteria from the micro-gap, thus provoking the formation of inflammatory connective tissue (ICT) in the region of the implant neck28. Ericsson et al.7 considered this process to be a biological protective mechanism against the bacteria residing in the micro-gap, and it explains the plaque-independent bone loss of approximately 1 mm during the first year. This bone loss may be a reduction in the marginal bone level in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions.

On the other hand other authors say that crestal bone changes around 2-piece, non-submerged titanium implantsare significantly influenced by possible movements between implants and abutments, but not by the size ofthe microgap (interface). Thus, significant crestal bone loss occurs in 2-piece implant configurations even with the smallest-sized microgaps (10 µ m) in combination with possible movements between implant components29. Because of the peri-implant bone resorption that occurs when a non–platform switched implant is exposed to the oral environment, it has been recommended to maintain 1.5 mm between the tooth and implant to preserve the bone adjacent to the teeth. Vela30 et al confirmed that the use of platform-switched implants reduces bone resorption after two-piece implants have been uncovered and that it is possible to place this type of implant 1 mm from teeth while maintaining the bone level adjacent to them (the bone peak).

Jason Schrotenboer31 et al showed that microthreads in implants increased crestal stress upon loading. Reduced abutment diameter (i.e., platform switching) resulted in less stress translated to the crestal bone in the microthread and smooth-neck groups. Also Fickl et al32 showed that platform-switched implants seemto limit crestal bone remodelling.

According to a systematic review by Atieh33 et al, the degree of marginal bone resorption is inversely related to the extent of the implant-abutment mismatch. However, further long-term, well-conducted, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the validity of this concept. 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 platform switching concept34.

PLATFORM SWITCHING AND INTERIMPLANT DISTANCE

Peri-implant bone resorption is reduced with platform switching system and with platform switching there is improvement in peri-implant bone preservation with satisfactory aesthetic results35. Adistance of more than 3 mm between two adjacent standard implants has beenshown to preserve the interproximal bone peak, resulting in only 0.45 mm ofresorption. Radiographic studies of boneresorption around 41 pairs of implants placed less than 3 mm apart in 37 patientswere carried out. Mean vertical bone resorption was 0.62 mm, and the mean horizontalcomponent was 0.60 mm. The bone peak that extended coronally beyondan imaginary line connecting the two implant-abutment interfaces was measured,and the mean bone height preservation above this interimplant line was 0.24 mm34. Standardized periapical radiography can evaluate crestal bone levels around implants clinically accurately(within 0.2 mm) in a high percentage (89%) of cases.36

PLATFORM SWITCHED IMPLANTS VS CONVENTIONAL IMPLANTS

However contrary to these studies, other studies by Linkevicius23 and Canullo report that crestal bone resorption around conventional and platform switched implants did not report any significant differences. Implants with platform switching did not preserve crestal bone better in comparison with implants with traditional implant abutment connection if, at the time of implant placement, thin mucosal tissues were present23. Meta-analyses showed less crestal bone loss around immediate implant placement compared with implant placement inhealed bone29,37. Platform-switched implants showed greater crestal bone preservation than non–platform switched implants38. There was no significant difference in CBL with one- versus two-stage placement or use of immediate versus delayed immediate implant loading. Although immediate implant placement showed favorable outcomesfor crestal bone loss changes, these results should be interpreted with caution because of high heterogeneityamong studies.23, 30, 37

Marginal bone level alterations could be related to the extent of implant/abutment mismatching. Marginal bone levels were better maintained at implants restored according to the platform-switching concept.25 

Annibali38 et al 2012 systematically reviewed the literature to compare implant survival (IS) and marginal bone loss (MBL) around platform switched (PS) versus conventionally restored platform-matching dental implants. Ten RCTs involving 435 subjects and 993 implants contributed to this review. The cumulative estimated implant success rate revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. They concluded that PS technique 38 appeared to be useful in limiting bone resorption. Platform switched implants were followed for a period of 11 years in a prospective study by Wegenberg39 et al. All implants had been placed at the crestal level during surgery. Using the known distance of 0.8mm between the peaks of adjacent threads, a determination was made on the radiographs on the amount of bone lost. 71 of the 94 implants showed no bone loss on the mesial aspect and 67 showed no bone loss on the distal aspect. 84% of the mesial surfaces and 88% of the distal surfaces had 0.8mm or less of bone loss. This study confirms the beneficial effect of platform switching39.

CONCLUSION

Majority of the studies report that platform switching does help in marginal bone preservation and hence ensures long term implant survival as well as aesthetics. However it does have its disadvantages like if normal implants are to be used smaller diameter abutments may compromise the emergence profile in aesthetic areas. At least 3mm of soft tissue should be present to place platform switched implants or else bone resorption is likely to occur. A proper understanding of the platform switching concept is needed in order to utilize it to prevent marginal bone loss.

Supporting File
No Pictures
References
  1. Albrektsson T, Isidor F. Consensus report of session IV. In: Lang NP, Karring T, eds. Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Periodontology. London :Quintessence Publishing; 1994:365-369. 
  2. Maeda, Yoshinobu, et al. "Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale?" Clinical Oral Implants Research 2007;18(5):581-584. 
  3. Desai, Manthan H., and Veena A. Patil. "Platform switching: A panacea for bone loss?" Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology 2013;17(5):681.
  4. Becker W, Goldstein M, Becker BE, Sennerby L.Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: A prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(Suppl. 1):S21-S27. 
  5. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35. 
  6. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-1383. 
  7. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bell M, Bosco AF, de Melo LG, Richter EJ. Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1141-1147.
  8. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:255-261. 
  9. Myshin HL, Wiens JP. Factors affecting soft tissue around dental implants: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:440-444. 
  10. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971-973. 
  11. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, et al. Periimplant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2006;85:473-478.
  12. King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: A radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002;73:1111-1117.
  13. Bratu EA, Tandlich M, Shapira L. Arough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:827-832. 
  14. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mu c o s a l b a rri e r f o l l o w i n g a b u tme n t dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24: 568-572. 
  15. 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. 
  16. Vela-Nebot X, Rodrı´guez-Ciurana X, Rodado-Alonso C, Segala`-Torres M. Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce c r e st a l bone r e sorption. Impl ant Dent 2006;15:313-320.
  17. Hu¨rzeler 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(Suppl. 1)33-39. 
  18. 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.
  19. Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:347-355. 
  20. Wagenberg B, Froum SJ. Prospective study of 94 platform-switched implants observed from 1992 to 2006. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:9-17. 
  21. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3- D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:113-119.
  22. Rodrı´guez-Ciurana X, Vela-Nebot X, Segala`- Torres M, 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;29:141-151. 
  23. Linkevicius, Tomas, et al. "Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: a 1-year pilot study". Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 68.9 (2010): 2272-2277. 
  24. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: Is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18: 581-584.
  25. Tarnow, D. P., S. C. Cho, and S. S. Wallace. "The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of i n t e r-imp l a n t b o n e c r e st. " J o u r n a l o f periodontology 71.4 (2000): 546-549. 
  26. Enkling N, Boslau V, Klimberg T, et al. Platform switching: A randomized clinical trial – One year results. J Dent Res 2009;88(Spec. Issue A):3394. Available at: http://www.dentalresearch.org. Accessed March 21, 2010. 
  27. Canullo L, Quaranta A, Teles RP. The microbiota associated with implants restored with platform switching: A preliminary report. J Periodontol 2010;81:403-411. 
  28. Hagiwara, Yoshiyuki. "Does platform switching really prevent crestal bone loss around implants?." Japanese Dental Science Review 46.2 (2010): 122-131. 
  29. Kinaia, Bassam M., et al. "Crestal bone level changes around immediately placed implants: a systematic review and meta-analyses with at least 12 months' follow-up after functional loading." Journal of periodontology 85.11 (2014): 1537- 1548. 
  30. Vela, Xavier, et al. "Crestal bone changes on platform-switched implants and adjacent teeth when the tooth-implant distance is less than 1.5 mm." International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 32.2 (2012): 149. 
  31. Schrotenboer, Jason, et al. "Effect of microthreads and platform switching on crestal bone stress levels: a finite element analysis." Journal of periodontology 79.11 (2008): 2166-2172. 
  32. Fickl, Stefan, et al. "Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments." The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 25.3 (2010): 577.
  33. Canullo, Luigi, et al. "Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: preliminary results of 18 months f o ll ow u p a p r o s p e c ti v e r a n d omi z e d match paired controlled trial." Clinical Oral Implants Research 23.10 (2012): 1142-1146. 
  34. Atieh, Momen A., Hadeel M. Ibrahim, and Ahmad H. Atieh. "Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. " Journal of periodontology 81.10 (2010): 1350-1366.
  35. Cumbo, C., et al. "Implant platform switching concept: a literature review." Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17.3 (2013): 392-7.
  36. Ocument, D. "Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: A methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements." (2001).
  37. Canullo, Luigi, Giorgia Iurlaro, and Giuliano Iannello. "Double Iannello blind randomized controlled trial study on post extraction immediately restored implants using the switching platform concept: soft tissue response. Preliminary report." Clinical Oral Implants Research 20.4 (2009): 414- 420. 
  38. Annibali, Susanna, et al. "Peri implant marginal bone level: a systematic review a n d meta analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants." Journal of clinical periodontology 39.11 (2012): 1097-1113. 
  39. Wagenberg, Barry, and Stuart J. Froum. "Prospective study of 94 platform-switched implants observed from 1992 to 2006." Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 30.1 (2010): 9-17.
HealthMinds Logo
RGUHS Logo

© 2024 HealthMinds Consulting Pvt. Ltd. This copyright specifically applies to the website design, unless otherwise stated.

We use and utilize cookies and other similar technologies necessary to understand, optimize, and improve visitor's experience in our site. By continuing to use our site you agree to our Cookies, Privacy and Terms of Use Policies.