Comparison of immediate and conventional loading protocols with respect to marginal bone loss around implants supporting mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

SummaryPurposeTo compare marginal bone level changes (MBLCs) of immediately- and conventionally-loaded implants supporting a mandibular implant overdenture (IOD).Materials and methodsBoth electronic (MEDLINE, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library) and manual searches were conducted for all relevant studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 November, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were selected. Studies which utilized implants narrower than 3 mm were excluded from analysis.ResultsFour studies met the criteria, with two evaluating horizontal bone loss. There were 70 patients in the test group (immediate loading) and 60 in the control group (conventional loading). Follow-up lasted 6–36 months, with MBLCs being interpreted from standardized periapical x-rays, panoramics or cone beam computed tomography. Each patient was given 2–3 implants.After 6 and 12 months, the differences in MBLCs were 0.04 mm (95% CI: −0.21, 0.29) and 0. 00 mm (95% CI: −0.35, 0.36) respectively. Subgroup analysis of RCTs with 2 implants revealed group differences in MBLCs as 0.13 mm (95% CI: −0.22, 0.48) and that in horizontal bone loss as 0.04 mm (95% CI: −0.02, 0.10). No statistically significant differences were identified (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe MBLCs of immediately-loaded implants for mandibular IODs seems comparable to those of conventional loading.