Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

The influence of platform switching and platform matching on marginal bone loss in immediately inserted dental implants: a retrospective clinical study

S. Attia, T. Aykanat, V. Chuchmová, KN. Stolte, B. Harder, L. Schilling, P. Streckbein, HP. Howaldt, A. Riad, S. Böttger

. 2025 ; 11 (1) : 16. [pub] 20250304

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25009569

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.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25009569
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250429135549.0
007      
ta
008      
250415s2025 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s40729-025-00604-y $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)40035995
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Attia, Sameh $u Department of Periodontology, Oral Medicine and Oral Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Straße 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. Sameh.Attia@charite.de $u Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 3, 35392, Giessen, Germany. Sameh.Attia@charite.de
245    14
$a The influence of platform switching and platform matching on marginal bone loss in immediately inserted dental implants: a retrospective clinical study / $c S. Attia, T. Aykanat, V. Chuchmová, KN. Stolte, B. Harder, L. Schilling, P. Streckbein, HP. Howaldt, A. Riad, S. Böttger
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a resorpce alveolární kosti $x diagnostické zobrazování $x etiologie $7 D016301
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    12
$a zubní implantáty $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015921
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a okamžité zatížení zubního implantátu $7 D057893
650    _2
$a rentgendiagnostika panoramatická $7 D011862
650    _2
$a design pilíře zubního implantátu $7 D059605
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Aykanat, Tugce $u Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 3, 35392, Giessen, Germany
700    1_
$a Chuchmová, Veronika $u Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, Brno, 625 00, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Stolte, Kim Natalie $u Department of Periodontology, Oral Medicine and Oral Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Straße 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany
700    1_
$a Harder, Ben $u Department of Clinical Affairs, BEGO Implant Systems GmbH & Co. KG, Wilhelm- Herbst-Str. 1, 28359, Bremen, Germany
700    1_
$a Schilling, Lucas $u Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 3, 35392, Giessen, Germany
700    1_
$a Streckbein, Philipp $u Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 3, 35392, Giessen, Germany
700    1_
$a Howaldt, Hans-Peter $u Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 3, 35392, Giessen, Germany
700    1_
$a Riad, Abanoub $u Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, Brno, 625 00, Czech Republic $u Masaryk Centre for Global Health (MCGH), Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, 62500, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Böttger, Sebastian $u Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 3, 35392, Giessen, Germany
773    0_
$w MED00216322 $t International journal of implant dentistry $x 2198-4034 $g Roč. 11, č. 1 (2025), s. 16
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40035995 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250415 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250429135544 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2311137 $s 1246650
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 11 $c 1 $d 16 $e 20250304 $i 2198-4034 $m International journal of implant dentistry $n Int J Implant Dent $x MED00216322
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250415

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace