Effects of different switched or not-switched implant and abutment platform designs and marginal bone loss on fracture strength: An in vitro study

• Published in: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry Vol. 128; no. 1; pp. 55 - 62
• Main Authors: Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre, Dedavid, Berenice Anina, Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2022
• ISSN: 0022-3913; 1097-6841
• DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.038

The use of reduced platform sets (implants and abutments) can help to control crestal bone loss around implants, which is essential for optimizing esthetics and biomechanical behavior. However, the information available on the fracture resistance of implants with a reduced platform is sparse. The purpose of this in vitro study was to analyze the maximum fracture strength value of implants with different platform designs during quasistatic fatigue, followed by a simulation of different bone levels of cervical insertion. One hundred and twenty sets of dental implants and abutments with different diameters and platform designs were tested. All implants had an internal hexagon connection and conical macrogeometry. Four groups (n=30) were studied: Ø4.0-mm implants with a regular matched platform (rMatch group), Ø4.0-mm implants with a regular switched platform (PSwitch group), Ø5.0-mm implants with a wide matched platform (wMatch group), and Ø5.0-mm implants with a wide switched platform (wSwitch group). Three conditions simulating different levels of bone position around the cervical portion of the implants were proposed: insertion at the implant shoulder level=0 mm (L0), level=3 mm of insertion loss (L3), and level=5 mm of insertion loss (L5). All sets of all groups and proposed insertion level were subjected to a fracture strength test at 30 degrees in relation to the axis of the sets in a universal testing machine. Regardless of the insertion levels tested, the switched platform implants (rSwitch and wSwitch groups) showed similar mean fracture strength values (P>.05), while the implants of matched platforms (rMatch and wMatch groups) showed different fracture strength values for all insertion levels tested (P<.001). The fracture strength values of the switched platform implants were lower at all insertion levels tested. However, for all insertion levels tested, the implants with a switched platform presented less deformation, whereas, in the matched platform implants, there was significant deformation of the implant structure.