ArticleORAL & implantology
Different performance of platform switching in equicrestal position implant: an histological study.
Article in ORAL & implantology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study we tested two different type of implant systems that were selected on the basis of differences in macrogeometry of platform switching in order to evaluate the behavior in term of BIC on the platform. MATERIAL AND
methodThe patients were divided in two groups (Group I and II); group I was composed by 4 patients that each received in the posterior areas of mandible one type A implant (3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTBPlan1Health Amaro (UD) Italy) one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). Group II was composed by 3 patients that each received in the posterior areas of jawsbone one type A implant [3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTB- Plan1Health Amaro, (UD), Italy] one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). All the implants were placed, by the same operator, in equicrestal position using "one stage" technique with a healing abutment at an adequate gingival height. After 12 weeks of healing all the implants of both groups were harvested with the peri-implant bone tissues. BIC upon platform was calculated considering as implant surface the platform length.
resultsOur results showed that the mean percentage of BIC value related to platform surface placed in equicrestal position was higher in patients with type A implant than patients receiving type B implant independently from mandibular or maxillary positions. Moreover the mean percentage of BIC related to platform surface was significantly (p<0.05) higher in Group II/A than Group I/A.
conclusionsOur data highlights that the particular features of the Bioplatform of Type A implant systems guarantee a higher value of BIC even if the implants were placed equicrestally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.