Evaluation of radiographic and aesthetic outcome of platform switching or regular platform implants in the anterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort study

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2018.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the influence of platform switching or regular platform implants on radiographic and aesthetic outcome in the maxillary anterior zone.

Methods

Patients who had received single implant in the anterior maxilla from 2013 to 2016 in Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled. A total of 24 patients receiving 25 implants meeting the inclusion criteria were recruited and divided into two groups: platform-switching interface group (n= 12) and matching butt-joint interface group (n= 13) . The overall mean follow-up period was 14 months. Photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to pink esthetic score and white esthetic score (PES and WES) and marginal bone loss (MBL) was measured with standardized digital intra-oral radiographs. Non parametric variables were statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results

The survival rate of implants in both the two groups was 100%. MBL in the platform switching group (0.38 ± 0.39) mm was less than that in the platform matching group (0.98 ± 0.48) mm, which was statistically different (U= 133.5, P= 0.002) . According to the professional assessments, PES in platform switching group was 9.33 ± 2.61, while PES in platform matching group was 8.15 ± 1.73, which was not statistically different (U= 52.5, P= 0.168) . WES in platform switching group was 6.83 ± 1.59, while WES in platform matching group was 7.15 ± 2.58, which was not statistically different either (U= 92.5, P= 0.437) .

Conclusions

Platform witching and regular platform implants yielded high survival rate and comparable aesthetic outcome in the maxillary anterior zone. MBL in platform switching group was less than that in platform matching group.

Key words: Esthetics, dental, Bone resorption, Platform switching, dental implant, Pink esthetic score, White esthetic score

Xin Liu, Baoxin Huang, Zhipeng Li, Peiming Gu, Xiaoyin Liang, Jianting Shao, Zhuofan Chen. Evaluation of radiographic and aesthetic outcome of platform switching or regular platform implants in the anterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(01): 48-52.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2018.01.008

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V12/I01/48

Figures/Tables 5

References 20

[1]	Papaspyridakos P，Chen CJ，Singh M，et al. Success criteria in implant dentistry：a systematic review[J]. J Dent Res，2012，91（3）：242-248.
[2]	Strietzel FP，Neumann K，Hertel M. Impact of platform switching on marginal peri-implant bone-level changes. A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2015，26（3）：342-358.
[3]	Hsu YT，Lin GH，Wang HL. Effects of Platform-Switching on Peri-implant Soft and Hard Tissue Outcomes：A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants，2017，32（1）：e9-e24.
[4]	Huang B，Meng H，Piao M，et al. Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implant：a clinical and radiographic study in dogs[J]. J Periodontol，2012，83（9）：1164-1171.
[5]	Fürhauser R，Florescu D，Benesch T，et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns：the pink esthetic score[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2005，16（6）：639-644.
[6]	Belser UC，Grutter L，Vailati F，et al. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria：a cross-sectional，retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2-to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores[J]. J Periodontol，2009，80（1）：140-151.
[7]	Ross SB，Pette GA，Parker WB，et al. Gingival margin changes in maxillary anterior sites after single immediate implant placement and provisionalization：a 5-year retrospective study of 47 patients[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants，2014，29（1）：127-134.
[8]	Benic GI，Wolleb K，Sancho-Puchades M，et al. Systematic review of parameters and methods for the professional assessment of aesthetics in dental implant research[J]. J Clin Periodontol，2012（39 Suppl 12）：160-192.
[9]	Kuchler U，Chappuis V，Gruber R，et al. Immediate implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone：10-year clinical and radiographic outcomes[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2016，27（2）：253-257.
[10]	Maeda Y，Miura J，Taki I，et al. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching：is there any biomechanical rationale？[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2007，18（5）：581-584.
[11]	Telleman G，Raghoebar GM，Vissink A，et al. Impact of platform switching on peri-implant bone remodeling around short implants in the posterior region，1-year results from a split-mouth clinical trial[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2014，16（1）：70-80.
[12]	Enkling N，Jöhren P，Katsoulis J，et al. Influence of platform switching on bone-level alterations：a three-year randomized clinical trial[J]. J Dent Res，2013，92（12 Suppl）：139S-145S.
[13]	Cabello G，Rioboo M，Fábrega JG. Immediate placement and restoration of implants in the aesthetic zone with a trimodal approach：soft tissue alterations and its relation to gingival biotype[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2013，24（10）：1094-1100.
[14]	Cosyn J，Hooghe N，De Bruyn H. A systematic review on the frequency of advanced recession following single immediate implant treatment[J]. J Clin Periodontol，2012，39（6）：582-589.
[15]	Huynh-Ba G，Pjetursson BE，Sanz M，et al. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2010，21（1）：37-42.
[16]	Younes F，Eghbali A，Raes M，et al. Relationship between buccal bone and gingival thickness revisited using non-invasive registration methods[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2016，27（5）：523-528.
[17]	Arora H，Ivanovski S. Correlation between pre-operative buccal bone thickness and soft tissue changes around immediately placed and restored implants in the maxillary anterior region：A 2-year prospective study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2017，28（10）：1188-1194.
[18]	Jung RE，Herzog M，Wolleb K，et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing small buccal dehiscence defects around dental implants treated with guided bone regeneration or left for spontaneous healing[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2017，28（3）：348-354.
[19]	Cosyn J，Eghbali A，Hanselaer L，et al. Four modalities of single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla：a clinical，radiographic，and aesthetic evaluation[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2013，15（4）：517-530.
[20]	Shi JY，Wang R，Zhuang LF，et al. Esthetic outcome of single implant crowns following type 1 and type 3 implant placement：a systematic review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2015，26（7）：768-774.

组别	种植体数（枚）	MBL( ± s)	极小值	极大值	U值	P值
平台转移组	12	0.38 ± 0.39	0	1.03	133.5	0.002
平台对接组	13	0.98 ± 0.48	0	1.82	?	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	MBL( ± s)	极小值	极大值	U值	P值
平台转移组	12	0.38 ± 0.39	0	1.03	133.5	0.002
平台对接组	13	0.98 ± 0.48	0	1.82	?	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	PES( ± s)	极小值	极大值	U值	P值
平台转移组	12	9.33 ± 2.61	5	13	52.5	0.168
平台对接组	13	8.15 ± 1.73	6	12	?	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	PES( ± s)	极小值	极大值	U值	P值
平台转移组	12	9.33 ± 2.61	5	13	52.5	0.168
平台对接组	13	8.15 ± 1.73	6	12	?	?

组别	种植体数（枚）	WES( ± s)	极小值	极大值	U值	P值
平台转移组	12	6.83 ± 1.59	5	10	92.5	0.437
平台对接组	13	7.15 ± 2.58	2	10	?	?

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export