Evidence supporting platform-switching to preserve marginal bone levels not definitive
- PMID: 22722419
- DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400864
Evidence supporting platform-switching to preserve marginal bone levels not definitive
Abstract
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), UK National Research Register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), ISI Proceedings for relevant conference abstracts. The search strategy used keywords but not subject heading terms. A number of relevant journals were hand searched (seven most recent years) and authors were contacted in the absence of complete data.
Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT) reported in English only, that compared platform-switched to platform-matched implants were eligible. A minimum of 10 implants had to have been placed in the platform-switched group (it is unclear if there was a minimum for the comparison group) and they had to have been followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Primary outcome was marginal bone level changes. Secondary outcome was implant failure rate.
Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted by more than one author using a data extraction form. Quality assessment was done using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using fixed effects model in the absence of significant heterogeneity, and the random effects model where heterogeneity was greater. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the chi(2) and I(2) tests. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were planned to identify any potential causes of heterogeneity.
Results: Ten studies including 1239 implants were included and all were published 2007-2010. Seven were RCTs, three were CCTs. Range of observation was 12-60 months. Methodological quality was assessed as 'satisfactory'. Chi(2) =126.79 (P <0.0001), I(2) = 91% indicating significant statistical heterogeneity. Thus the random effects model was used to synthesise the data. Bone loss in the platform-matched implant group was greater with a mean difference of -0.37 mm (95% CI -0.55 to -0.20, P <0.0001). This is based on the longest follow-up interval from each trial (therefore could be anywhere between 12 and 60 months). There was no significant difference in implant failure.
Conclusions: Platform-switching may preserve vertical crestal bone levels more than platform-matching when placing implants.
Comment on
-
Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Periodontol. 2010 Oct;81(10):1350-66. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100232. J Periodontol. 2010. PMID: 20575657
Similar articles
-
Which filling material is best in the primary dentition?Evid Based Dent. 2010;11(1):4-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400697. Evid Based Dent. 2010. PMID: 20348886
-
No difference between failure rates of early and conventionally loaded implants.Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(2):50. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400583. Evid Based Dent. 2008. PMID: 18584005
-
Soft tissue handling during implant placement.Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(3):77. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400596. Evid Based Dent. 2008. PMID: 18927566
-
Photodynamic therapy for chronic periodontitis.Evid Based Dent. 2011;12(3):78-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400810. Evid Based Dent. 2011. PMID: 21979769
-
No difference between splinted and unsplinted implants to support overdentures.Evid Based Dent. 2012 Jun;13(2):54-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400863. Evid Based Dent. 2012. PMID: 22722418
Cited by
-
Dental Implants Placed in Fresh Human Extraction Sockets Without Osteotomy: A Case Series.Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025 Jun;11(3):e70159. doi: 10.1002/cre2.70159. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025. PMID: 40497518 Free PMC article.
-
Platform switching of implants may decrease bone loss.Evid Based Dent. 2015 Sep;16(3):84-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401117. Evid Based Dent. 2015. PMID: 26492804 No abstract available.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources