The present study tested the hypothesis that Platform Switching (PS) and Regular Platform (RP) implants would have different outcomes in the bilateral single tooth replacements against the alternative hypothesis of no difference.
This study was designed as a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial. Eighteen patients, with bilaterally missing single bicuspid or molar had one of the sites to be restored randomly assigned to be treated according to the platform-switching concept with (PS group), or with matching implant-abutment diameters, (RP group). A total of 36 implants, (18 Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy PS, 18 Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy), were bilaterally installed. All the implants were inserted with an insertion torque between 35 and 45 Ncm, in healed healthy bone and the healing abutment was connected at the same time. Both implants were delayed loaded with screw retained temporary crowns 3 months after implant insertion and with screw retained definitive crowns 2 months later. Outcome measures were implant survival, biological and prosthetic complications, radiographic marginal bone-level changes, soft tissue parameters (PPD and BOP). Clinical data were collected at baseline 6 and 12 months. Statistical analyses were conducted using computational program SAS (version 9.2), with 1-away ANOVA and F-test. Statistical significance was tested at the 0.05 probability level, and all values were presented as mean and standard deviation with 95% confidence intervals.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
18
Both sites received tapered implants with an anodised surface, one site received: Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy PS implant; (Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden), with diameters of 4.3 or 5.0 mm and lengths of 10 or 8 mm, (PS group), the contralateral site received Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy implant with Replace Select connection with diameters of 4.3 or 5.0 mm and lengths of 10 or 8 mm, (RP group). Healing abutments were connected to implants at the same time of surgery , then flaps were sutured with Vicryl 4.0 sutures (Vicryl, Ethicon J\&J International, St-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium).
Implant Survival
implant survival: The removal of implants was dictated by instability, progressive marginal bone loss, infection or implant fracture.
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Change in marginal bone levels
Marginal bone levels: Peri-implant marginal bone levels were evaluated on intraoral digital radiographs taken with the parallel technique at the time of implant placement, at 6 months and 12 months. If radiographs were inconclusive, they were repeated. A blinded radiologist (F.G.), unaffiliated with the study centre, interpreted all radiographs. The distances from the mesial and distal interproximal bone to the reference point (the horizontal interface between the implant and abutment) were measured with a software measurement tool (NIH Scion Image programme version 4.0.2, Frederick, MD, USA) calibrated against the space between two threads to the nearest 0.1 mm, and the mean of these two measurements was calculated for each implant. The measurements were recorded with reference to the implant axis.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.