Dataset Information

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.

SUBMITTER: Zhu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4635353 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical efficacy of early loading versus conventional loading of dental implants.

Zhu Yanfei Y Zheng Xinyi X Zeng Guanqi G Xu Yi Y Qu Xinhua X Zhu Min M Lu Eryi E

Scientific reports 20151106

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), whi ...[more]

PMID: 26542097

Similar Datasets

Project description:Animal studies and the scarce clinical trials available that have been conducted suggest that bioactive surfaces on dental implants could improve the osseointegration of such implants. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of osseointegration of titanium (Ti) dental implants using bioactive surfaces with that of Ti implants using conventional surfaces such as sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) or similar surfaces. Applying the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the MEDLINE, PubMed Central and Web of Science databases were searched for scientific articles in April 2020. The keywords used were "dental implants", "bioactive surfaces", "biofunctionalized surfaces", and "osseointegration", according to the question: "Do bioactive dental implant surfaces have greater osseointegration capacity compared with conventional implant surfaces?" Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. 128 studies were identified, of which only 30 met the inclusion criteria: 3 clinical trials and 27 animal studies. The average STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) and ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) scores were 15.13 ± 2.08 and 17.7±1.4, respectively. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was reported in 3 studies; removal torque test (RTT)-in 1 study; intraoral periapical X-ray and microcomputed tomography radiological evaluation (RE)-in 4 studies; shear force (SF)-in 1 study; bone-to-implant contact (BIC)-in 12 studies; and BIC and bone area (BA) jointly-in 5 studies. All animal studies reported better bone-to-implant contact surface for bioactive surfaces as compared to control implants with a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Regarding the bioactive surfaces investigated, the best results were yielded by the one where mechanical and chemical treatment methods of the Ti surfaces were combined. Hydroxyapatite (HA) and calcium-phosphate (Ca-Ph) were the most frequently used bioactive surfaces. According to the results of this systematic review, certain bioactive surfaces have a positive effect on osseointegration, although certain coating biomolecules seem to influence early peri-implant bone formation. Further and more in-depth research in this field is required to reduce the time needed for osseointegration of dental implants.

Project description:Early marginal bone loss (MBL) is a non-infective remodeling process of variable entity occurring within the first year after implant placement. It has a multifactorial etiology, being influenced by both surgical and prosthetic factors. Their impact remains a matter of debate, and controversial information is available, particularly regarding implants placed subcrestally. The present multicenter prospective clinical study aimed to correlate marginal bone loss around platform-switched implants with conical connection inserted subcrestally to general and local factors. Fifty-five patients were enrolled according to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria by four clinical centers. Single or multiple implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, South Korea) were inserted in the posterior mandible with a one-stage protocol. Impressions were taken after two months of healing (T1), screwed metal-ceramic restorations were delivered three months after implant insertion (T2), and patients were recalled after six months (T3) and twelve months (T4) of prosthetic loading. Periapical radiographs were acquired at each time point. Bone levels were measured at each time point on both mesial and distal aspects of implants. Linear mixed models were fitted to the data to identify predictors associated with MBL. Fifty patients (25 male, 25 female; mean age 58.0 ± 12.8) with a total of 83 implants were included in the final analysis. The mean subcrestal position of the implant shoulder at baseline was 1.24 ± 0.57 mm, while at T4, it was 0.46 ± 0.59 mm under the bone level. Early marginal bone remodeling was significantly influenced by implant insertion depth and factors related to biological width establishment (vertical mucosal thickness, healing, and prosthetic abutment height). Deep implant insertion, thin peri-implant mucosa, and short abutments were associated with greater marginal bone loss up to six months after prosthetic loading. Peri-implant bone levels tended to stabilize after this time, and no further marginal bone resorption was recorded at twelve months after implant loading.

Dataset Information

Clinical efficacy of early loading versus conventional loading of dental implants.

Publications

Clinical efficacy of early loading versus conventional loading of dental implants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets