CAMLOG and Science

CAMLOG&Science – Chapter 4 22 | 23 Fig. 15A: Implants (K-Series) inserted 0.4 mm supracrestal according to the standard surgical protocol. Fig. 15B : Inserted implant covered with a non-matching healing abutment (plat- form switching). Fig. 15C: Implant with standard healing ab- utment (control), histology after six months healing. Fig. 15D: Implant with non-matching healing abutment (platform-switching), his- tology after six months healing. Bone loss is slightly reduced compared to the standard configuration. Image source: F. Schwarz CONELOG ® IMPLANTS: EFFECTS OF PLATFORM SWITCHING ON BONE AND SOFT TISSUE Becker et al. (2007) evaluated the influence of platform switching on crestal bone changes by comparing CONELOG ® implants (internal platform swit- ching, referred to as experimental implants) and CAMLOG ® implants with matching healing abutments. Bone healing and formation of a junctional epithelium was evaluated histologically up to 28 days. In the implants with standard healing abutments, a significantly increased epithelial down- growth was noted lingually (1.1 ± 0.6 mm) and buccally (0.9 ± 0.4 mm), which was associated with significant buccal bone loss. In contrast, the plat- form switching design of the CONELOG ® implants prevented apical epithelial downgrowth significantly and reduced bone loss. However, the difference in bone loss between both groups did not reach statistical significance.