A significant no-load healing period is the generally accepted prerequisite for osseointegration in dental implantology. The aim of this article was to examine whether this no-load healing period is validated by the experimental literature. In vivo histological data was scrutinized to identify the effect of early loading protocols on the bone-implant interface. Several loading modes were identified. They were categorized into groups according to implant design and the type of prosthetic reconstruction, and by their ability to introduce a distinct magnitude of motion at the interface. Specific histologic responses of early loaded implants (i.e., fibrous repair or osseointegration) were suggested to be directly related to the specific combinations of the above parameters. Early loading per se was not found to be detrimental to osseointegration. Specifically, only excessive micromotion was directly implicated in the formation of fibrous encapsulation. The literature suggests that there is a critical threshold of micromotion above which fibrous encapsulation prevails over osseointegration. This critical level, however, was not zero micromotion as generally interpreted. Instead, the tolerated micromotion threshold was found to lie somewhere between 50 and 150 microns. Suggestions are made for the earliest loading time that achieves osseointegration.

Clinicians should proceed with great caution when placing two implants adjacent to each other in the esthetic zone. In most cases, only 2, 3, or 4 mm of soft tissue height (average 3.4 mm) can be expected to form over the interimplant crest of bone. These results showed that modification of treatment plans may be necessary when esthetics are critical for success.

No abstract

This article presents the results of evaluating the changes in peri-implant soft tissue dimensions associated with immediate implant placement into anterior postextraction sockets for four treatment groups: no BGPR (no bone graft, no provisional restoration), PR (no bone graft, provisional restoration), BG (bone graft, no provisional restoration), and BGPR (bone graft, provisional restoration). The vertical distance of the peri-implant soft tissue was greater for grafted sites than for nongrafted ones (2.72 mm vs 2.29 mm, P < .06). The facial soft tissue thickness at the gingival third also was greater for grafted than for nongrafted sites (2.90 mm vs 2.28 mm, P < .008) and for sites with provisional restorations compared to sites without them (2.81 mm vs 2.37 mm, P < .06), respectively. The net gain in soft tissue height and thickness was about 1 mm. The increases in vertical and horizontal dimensions for grafted sites were between 0.5 and 1.0 mm, as compared to sites with no bone graft and no provisional restoration.

No abstract