Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A Practical, Descriptive Comparison of Seven Guided Implant Surgery Planning Software Using Clinical Scenarios.

Journal of dentistry·2026
Same author

Safe Crestal Sinus Elevation Below 3 mm Residual Bone with Tissue-Level Implant Placement: A Case Report.

Reports (MDPI)·2025
Same author

Effectiveness of an AI-Assisted Digital Workflow for Complete-Arch Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparative Study.

Dentistry journal·2025
Same author

A Second Chance: Managing Late Implant Failure from Peri-Implantitis with Computer-Guided Bone Regeneration-A Clinical Case Report.

Reports (MDPI)·2025
Same author

The Role of Digital Workflow in Creating a New, Esthetic and Functional Smile in a Periodontally Compromised Patient: A Case Report.

Reports (MDPI)·2025
Same author

Periodontal Disease and Age-Related Maculopathy: A Case Report.

Clinical medicine insights. Case reports·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 9, 2026

Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
14:31

Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees

Published on: July 15, 2009

14.6K

Platform switching versus regular platform implants: 3-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial.

Silvio Mario Meloni, Sascha Aleksandear Jovanovic, Milena Pisano

    European Journal of Oral Implantology
    |December 20, 2016
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Platform switching and regular platform implants show comparable outcomes for single-tooth replacement over three years. This study found no significant differences in implant survival, bone levels, or complications between the two implant methods.

    More Related Videos

    An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
    11:51

    An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

    Published on: February 10, 2014

    16.0K
    Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo
    12:19

    Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo

    Published on: July 1, 2013

    11.3K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Mar 9, 2026

    Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
    14:31

    Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees

    Published on: July 15, 2009

    14.6K
    An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
    11:51

    An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

    Published on: February 10, 2014

    16.0K
    Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo
    12:19

    Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo

    Published on: July 1, 2013

    11.3K

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Implantology
    • Prosthodontics
    • Periodontology

    Background:

    • Platform switching (PS) in dental implants involves using an abutment narrower than the implant platform, potentially influencing peri-implant bone levels and soft tissue response.
    • Regular platform (RP) implants utilize matching implant-abutment diameters, representing a conventional approach for single-tooth restorations.
    • Comparative data on the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of PS versus RP concepts in single-tooth replacements is crucial for evidence-based practice.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of platform switching (PS) versus regular platform (RP) implants in single-tooth replacement.
    • To test the hypothesis that PS and RP implants have different outcomes, against the null hypothesis of no difference.

    Main Methods:

    • A randomized controlled split-mouth trial involving 18 patients requiring single-tooth implants.
    • Implant sites were randomly assigned to either the PS group or the RP group, with 36 Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy implants used.
    • Outcomes assessed included survival rates, complications, marginal bone level (MBL) changes, pocket probing depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) at 3, 9, and 36 months post-loading.

    Main Results:

    • No implant failures or prosthetic complications were observed in either group.
    • No statistically significant differences were found between PS and RP groups regarding mucosal inflammation, PPD, or BOP at 36 months.
    • Marginal bone level changes at 36 months were comparable between groups, with mean MBL of 1.06 mm for PS and 1.09 mm for RP.

    Conclusions:

    • Three years after loading, platform switching and regular platform implants demonstrate comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes for single-tooth restorations.
    • The findings support the use of both platform switching and regular platform concepts, as they yield similar results in terms of implant success and peri-implant health.