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

Craniofacial speargun injuries: report of three cases, literature review and proposed management guidelines for maxillo-facial surgeons.

Oral and maxillofacial surgery·2026
Same author

The Submandibular-Facial Artery Perforator Flap (S-FAPF): A Novel Tool for Lower Face Reconstruction.

Head & neck·2026
Same author

A Real-World Experience of Cemiplimab in Patients with Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Cancers·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

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 26, 2025

Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants
09:08

Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants

Published on: May 14, 2020

4.1K

Platform switching versus regular platform single implants: 5-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled

Silvio Mario Meloni, Aurea Lumbau, Edoardo Baldoni

    International Journal of Oral Implantology (Berlin, Germany)
    |March 19, 2020
    PubMed
    Summary

    Platform switching (PS) and regular platform (RP) dental implants demonstrated comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes over five years. This randomized controlled trial found no significant differences in survival rates, complications, marginal bone loss, or pocket depth between the two implant types.

    Keywords:
    dental abutmentdental implantsimplant–abutment interfacemarginal bone lossplatform switching

    More Related Videos

    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

    14.4K
    C-arm-Free Simultaneous OLIF51 and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Single Lateral Position
    12:25

    C-arm-Free Simultaneous OLIF51 and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Single Lateral Position

    Published on: September 16, 2022

    4.4K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Dec 26, 2025

    Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants
    09:08

    Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants

    Published on: May 14, 2020

    4.1K
    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

    14.4K
    C-arm-Free Simultaneous OLIF51 and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Single Lateral Position
    12:25

    C-arm-Free Simultaneous OLIF51 and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in a Single Lateral Position

    Published on: September 16, 2022

    4.4K

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Implantology
    • Prosthodontics
    • Periodontology

    Background:

    • Platform switching (PS) involves using an abutment with a smaller diameter than the implant platform, potentially influencing peri-implant tissue response.
    • Regular platform (RP) implants utilize matching implant and abutment diameters, representing a conventional approach in dental restoration.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of platform switching (PS) versus regular platform (RP) dental implants.
    • To evaluate implant survival, prosthetic complications, marginal bone level changes, and soft tissue parameters over a 5-year period.

    Main Methods:

    • A randomized controlled split-mouth trial involving 18 patients with bilaterally missing teeth.
    • 36 implants were placed and randomly assigned to either the PS or RP group.
    • Outcomes including survival rates, complications, marginal bone level (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed up to 60 months post-loading.

    Main Results:

    • No implant failures or prosthetic complications were recorded in either group.
    • Peri-implant mucosal inflammation with positive bleeding on probing (BOP) was observed in a small number of patients in both groups, with no statistically significant difference.
    • No statistically significant differences were found between PS and RP implants regarding marginal bone level (MBL) changes, pocket probing depth (PPD), or BOP at any follow-up point up to 60 months.

    Conclusions:

    • Dental implants restored using the platform switching (PS) concept exhibit comparable clinical and radiographic results to those restored with regular platform (RP) implants.
    • Both PS and RP implant systems demonstrate favorable long-term outcomes, suggesting similar efficacy in supporting single-unit crowns.