Cargando…
Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching implant insertion depth: An update
A review is made, analyzing marginal bone loss in relation to the depth of implant insertion with platform switching, according to the position of the neck (supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal), and evaluating survival of the implants. A PubMed search was made of the studies in animals and humans pu...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medicina Oral S.L.
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917643/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24558550 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.50743 |
_version_ | 1782302873690832896 |
---|---|
author | Alonso-González, Rocío Aloy-Prósper, Amparo Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Peñarrocha-Diago, M A. Peñarrocha-Diago, M. |
author_facet | Alonso-González, Rocío Aloy-Prósper, Amparo Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Peñarrocha-Diago, M A. Peñarrocha-Diago, M. |
author_sort | Alonso-González, Rocío |
collection | PubMed |
description | A review is made, analyzing marginal bone loss in relation to the depth of implant insertion with platform switching, according to the position of the neck (supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal), and evaluating survival of the implants. A PubMed search was made of the studies in animals and humans published between 2005 and 2011, specifying platform insertion depth (supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal) and registering marginal bone loss from the time of prosthetic restoration to the end of follow-up (minimum 6 months). A total of 30 studies were included. The bone loss associated with implants placed at supracrestal level was slightly smaller than in the case of implants placed at subcrestal level, though statistical significance was not reached. The mean marginal bone loss values were 0.0 mm to 0.9±0.4 mm for the implants with the neck located at supracrestal level; 0.05 mm to 1.40±0.50 mm for those at subcrestal level; and 0.26±0.22 mm to 1.8±0.39 mm for those in a crestal location, after 6-60 months of follow-up. The survival rate was 88.6-100% for the implants with the neck positioned at crestal level, versus 98.3-100% below the crest, and 100% above the crest. The heterogeneity of the studies (surgical technique, platform surface texture, radiographic measurement techniques, etc.) made it difficult to establish a relationship between marginal bone loss and the supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal location of platform switching. Key words:Dental implants, platform switching, insertion depth, crestal insertion level, bone loss. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3917643 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Medicina Oral S.L. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39176432014-02-20 Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching implant insertion depth: An update Alonso-González, Rocío Aloy-Prósper, Amparo Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Peñarrocha-Diago, M A. Peñarrocha-Diago, M. J Clin Exp Dent Review A review is made, analyzing marginal bone loss in relation to the depth of implant insertion with platform switching, according to the position of the neck (supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal), and evaluating survival of the implants. A PubMed search was made of the studies in animals and humans published between 2005 and 2011, specifying platform insertion depth (supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal) and registering marginal bone loss from the time of prosthetic restoration to the end of follow-up (minimum 6 months). A total of 30 studies were included. The bone loss associated with implants placed at supracrestal level was slightly smaller than in the case of implants placed at subcrestal level, though statistical significance was not reached. The mean marginal bone loss values were 0.0 mm to 0.9±0.4 mm for the implants with the neck located at supracrestal level; 0.05 mm to 1.40±0.50 mm for those at subcrestal level; and 0.26±0.22 mm to 1.8±0.39 mm for those in a crestal location, after 6-60 months of follow-up. The survival rate was 88.6-100% for the implants with the neck positioned at crestal level, versus 98.3-100% below the crest, and 100% above the crest. The heterogeneity of the studies (surgical technique, platform surface texture, radiographic measurement techniques, etc.) made it difficult to establish a relationship between marginal bone loss and the supracrestal, crestal or subcrestal location of platform switching. Key words:Dental implants, platform switching, insertion depth, crestal insertion level, bone loss. Medicina Oral S.L. 2012-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3917643/ /pubmed/24558550 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.50743 Text en Copyright: © 2012 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Alonso-González, Rocío Aloy-Prósper, Amparo Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Peñarrocha-Diago, M A. Peñarrocha-Diago, M. Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching implant insertion depth: An update |
title | Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching
implant insertion depth: An update |
title_full | Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching
implant insertion depth: An update |
title_fullStr | Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching
implant insertion depth: An update |
title_full_unstemmed | Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching
implant insertion depth: An update |
title_short | Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching
implant insertion depth: An update |
title_sort | marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching
implant insertion depth: an update |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917643/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24558550 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.50743 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alonsogonzalezrocio marginalbonelossinrelationtoplatformswitchingimplantinsertiondepthanupdate AT aloyprosperamparo marginalbonelossinrelationtoplatformswitchingimplantinsertiondepthanupdate AT penarrochaoltradavid marginalbonelossinrelationtoplatformswitchingimplantinsertiondepthanupdate AT penarrochadiagoma marginalbonelossinrelationtoplatformswitchingimplantinsertiondepthanupdate AT penarrochadiagom marginalbonelossinrelationtoplatformswitchingimplantinsertiondepthanupdate |