The Influence of Platform Switching on Clinical, Laboratory, and Image‐Based Measures: A Prospective Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This prospective study was conducted to compare the marginal bone level alterations, stability/mobility measurements, and volume of myeloperoxidase (MPO) and nitric oxide (NO) of peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) between platform-switched (PS) and standard platform (SP) implants inserted to mandibular premolar/molar regions with a single-stage protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two (16 PS and 16 SP) implants restorated with fixed prosthesis were included in the study. For both implant systems standard implant dimensions were used. Implant abutment connections and final restorations were made after 3 months of osseointegration. Standard parallel periapical radiographs were used to measure marginal bone loss in over time. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and mobility measuring (MM) device were used to determine implant stability/mobility. PISF samples were derived with paper strips and PISF MPO and nitrite level analysis were done spectrophotometrically. Peri-implant parameters were assessed by periodontal indices and all parameters were evaluated at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: No healing problems were recorded for all implants at the end of the study period. At 12 months, mean bone loss measures were 0.84 and 0.76 mm, and mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were 74.04 and 76 for PS and SP implants, respectively. Mean MM values were found as -4.82 for PS and -6.26 for SP implants. There were no significant differences between implant types according to PISF volume and laboratory biochemical measures including MPO and NO, and clinical peri- implant indices at any time point. CONCLUSION: Platform switching seems not to affect the marginal bone level, clinical peri-implant parameters and MPO and NO metabolism around implants inserted to mandibular premolar/molar regions when using a single-stage protocol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".