Clinical evidence and Science

32 Clinical evidence and Science Fig. 17_Radiograph of CAMLOG® implants with Platform-Switching, situation 5-year post-loading. Courtesy of Prof. F. Guerra Platform-Switching and CAMLOG® implants A research group from Kiel, Mainz (Germany) and Coimbra (Portugal) started in 2010 a randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Using one implant geometry (CAMLOG® SCREW-LINE, same connection, same outer geometry) and being able to restore the implants with Platform-Switching and platform matching abutments respectively, the team hypothesized that the clinical and radiographic performance of platform switched restorations is not equivalent to platform matched restorations. The Platform-Switching or matching concept was applied from the beginning. Right after implant placement healing abutments with the relevant platforms were placed. With baseline loading standardized intraorally digital radiographs were taken at yearly follow-ups until 5 years post-loading from which the bone level changes were measured and calculated (primary outcome). Secondary outcome measures were implant survival and success, plaque index, sulcus bleeding index, and probing pocket depth measurements. From 68 patients treated with 146 implants 121 could be radiologically evaluated at the end of the study. Within the group with Platform-Switching a bone gain of 0.19 ± 0.53 mm was observed while the group with platform matching had a bone loss of -0.04 ± 0.58 mm, corresponding to a significant mean difference of 0.23 mm (p<0.025). Considering the bone level change over time, with Platform-Switching the bone recuperated after the remodeling phase while a stabilization was seen with platform matching. Together with the good results for survival, success, and the soft tissue parameters, the group concluded that patients may benefit from the use of Platform-Switching components in terms of bone maintenance if good hygiene and follow-ups are established (Fig 17). (Messias et al. 2019 (30), Guerra et al. 2014 (31), Rocha et al. 2016 (32)) CLINICAL EVIDENCE FOR CAMLOG® AND CONELOG® IMPLANTS

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE0MzMw