Platform‐switched implants vs platform‐matched implants placed in different implant‐abutment interface positions: A prospective randomized clinical and microbiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Placement of the implant-abutment interface (IAI) away from the bone crest has been suggested to have positive impacts on maintenance of peri-implant tissues. PURPOSE: To assess the effects of platform-switched and platform-matched implants, taking into consideration the IAI at different positions relative to the bone crest, on clinical, radiographic, and microbiological outcomes during 12 months following functional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present prospective randomized study was performed upon 70 patients. Group I (n = 23) implants presenting a platform-switched implant-abutment connection design was inserted 1 mm subcrestally. Group II (n = 22) implants with similar properties were inserted crestally. Group III (n = 25) implants presenting a platform-matched approach with an internal hexagon connection design was inserted crestally. The periodontal parameters were assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months postloading. Radiographic marginal bone level (MBL) changes were analyzed at the 12-month follow-up. The amount of DNA copies of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Tannerella forsythia, Provetalla intermedia and total bacterial mean load in peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) were assessed at the same periods. RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the groups with respect to the periodontal parameters for all time periods. At 12-month follow-up, the MBL changes were 0.16 ± 0.29 mm and 0.17 ± 0.23 mm for group I, 0.15 ± 0.25 mm and 0.17 ± 0.26 mm for group II, 0.17 ± 0.26 mm and for group III in mesial and distal sites, respectively. The mean total bacterial load was found significantly higher for group III compared to the other groups in the three interval times (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Implants restored with platform-switching and platform-matching performed equally regarding clinical and radiographic outcomes. Platform-matched implants inserted at the crestal level presented higher the mean bacterial total load in PISF.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".