Clinical efficacy of early loading versus conventional loading of dental implants

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the clinical differences between early and conventional loading protocols for dental implants. A comprehensive search of the Medline, Embase, and OVID databases for studies published through January 10, 2015 was conducted. Fourteen studies were included in our analysis. We found that early loading imposed a significantly higher risk of implant failure than did conventional loading (risk ratio = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.18, 3.69], P = 0.01), while no significant differences between the methods were found with regards to the marginal bone loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.28], P = 0.23), periotest value (WMD = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.83, 0.87], P = 0.96), or implant stability quotient (WMD = 0.79, 95% CI [−0.03, 1.62], P = 0.06). As for the health status of the peri-implant tissue, conventionally loaded implants demonstrated better performance than did early loaded implants. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the sample size, time of publication, loading definition, implant position, extent, and restoration type influenced the results. Although early implant loading is convenient and comfortable for patients, this method still cannot achieve the same clinical outcomes as the conventional loading method.

Accentuated osseointegration in osteogenic nanofibrous coated titanium implants

“…In spite of recent advances, the ideal surface modification of titanium implant for optimal osseointegration is yet an unresolved issue 30,31 . In humans, a titanium implant generally involves a prolong period of 3-4 months to integrate with bone [32][33][34] . Moreover, it has been claimed that regeneration of osseous tissue in rabbit study models are rather swift and all events related to healing may span for a period of approximately six weeks 32,35 .…”

Surface Modification of Direct-Current and Radio-Frequency Oxygen Plasma Treatments Enhance Cell Biocompatibility

“…In the past 50 years, implant dentistry for fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae has evolved from conventional delayed loading (3–6 months) to early loading (6–8 weeks) or immediate loading [ 9 , 10 ]. The breakthrough in loading protocol was achieved by early implant anchorage with surrounding bone tissue.…”

“…The sand-blasting and acid etching (SLA) method achieves micron and submicron scale topography for implant fixation. Previous clinical studies have reported the characteristics of SLA implants, which can restore bone defects after a healing period of 6–8 weeks [ 9 , 10 ]. Although SLA treatment for bone fixation does not alter the surface composition of titanium, SLA-treated surfaces belong to hydrophobic properties.…”

Assessment of Various Risk Factors for Success of Delayed and Immediate Loaded Dental Implants: A Retrospective Analysis

“…From the results, they concluded that higher risk of failure is associated with the immediate loaded dental implants. Zhu et al 21 evaluated the clinical differences between the outcome of immediate and delayed loading of dental implants. From the results, they concluded that despite of the convenience and comfort of the immediate loaded dental implants, clinical outcome comparable to conventional method of loading of dental implants cannot be reached.…”