Clinical efficacy of early and delayed loading implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Statement of problemWhether early loaded implants have similar clinical outcomes to delayed loaded implants is unclear. PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of early and delayed loading dental implants. Material and methodsComprehensive searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid databases were enriched by hand searches. Only human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical efficacy of early and delayed loading were included. The survival rates and marginal bone level (MBL) changes were pooled and analyzed by risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), respectively. The subgroup analyses, which were based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse-variance methods, included the types of prosthesis, implant time, occlusion, number of missing teeth, operation methods, dental position, healing methods, and type of first restoration. A funnel plot was used for heterogeneity analysis. ResultsEighteen trials were included from the initial 601 articles. The dental implant survival rates for the early and delayed loading were similar (P>.05). Regarding the marginal bone level changes, the 2 loading protocols also reached a comparable clinical outcome (P>.05). ConclusionsEarly implant loading should achieve the same clinical efficacy as the delayed loading method.