Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
test groups in the studies in terms of implant design, crest module macro/microgeometry and the implant-abutment connection. IntroductIonPreservation of crestal bone around a dental implant is of utmost significance for its long-term survival.After implant placement, a combination of mechanical and biological factors contributes to crestal bone loss (CBL). 1 Location of the implant and abutment junction (IAJ) and the inherent microgap in relation to the crestal bone and its bacterial colonization is one such important factor.Literature mentions many modifications in the implant structure and placement protocol to minimize CBL. 2 Platform switching is one such concept that refers to the use of a narrower abutment in relation to implant platform width for preventing peri-implant bone loss.It is postulated that switching the abutment diameter shifts the IAJ towards the center of the implant platform diameter, leaving a horizontal step which limits the CBL. 1,2any authors 34567891011 have reported a decrease in CBL and healthy soft tissue around platform switched (PS) implants as compared to those restored with the same diameter abutment, that is, platform matched (PM) implants.However, studies by Lago et al., 12 Enkling et al., 13 and Rokn et al. 14 reported a nonsignificant difference in CBL while using the two design systems.Systematic reviews by Atieh et al., 15 Monje and Pommer 16 and DI Girolamo et al. 17 reported the advantage of PS in terms of crestal bone preservation.However, the authors 15-17 reported a high level of heterogeneity in control and 1,
Kumar et al. (2024) studied this question.