Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Impact of platform switching on marginal peri-implant bone-level changes. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Frank Peter Strietzel1, Konrad Neumann, Moritz Hertel
1Department of Oral Medicine, Dental Radiology and Oral Surgery, Charité - Medical University of Berlin/Charité Centre 3 for Dental, Oral and Maxillary Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Objective:
To address the focused question, is there an impact of platform switching (PS) on marginal bone level (MBL) changes around endosseous implants compared to implants with platform matching (PM) implant-abutment configurations?
Material And Methods:
A systematic literature search was conducted using electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Journals@Ovid Full Text and Embase, manual search for human randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical controlled cohort studies (PCCS) reporting on MBL changes at implants with PS-, compared with PM-implant-abutment connections, published between 2005 and June 2013.
Results:
Twenty-two publications were eligible for the systematic review. The qualitative analysis of 15 RCTs and seven PCCS revealed more studies (13 RCTs and three PCCS) showing a significantly less mean marginal bone loss around implants with PS- compared to PM-implant-abutment connections, indicating a clear tendency favoring the PS technique. A meta-analysis including 13 RCTs revealed a significantly less mean MBL change (0.49 mm [CI95% 0.38; 0.60]) at PS implants, compared with PM implants (1.01 mm [CI95% 0.62; 1.40] (P < 0.0001).
Conclusions:
The meta-analysis revealed a significantly less mean MBL change at implants with a PS compared to PM-implant-abutment configuration. Studies included herein showed an unclear as well as high risk of bias mostly, and relatively short follow-up periods. The qualitative analysis revealed a tendency favoring the PS technique to prevent or minimize peri-implant marginal bone loss compared with PM technique. Due to heterogeneity of the included studies, their results require cautious interpretation.
