23 / 36
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.