Marginal Bone Loss Of Implants Research Articles

Comparison of the success rate and marginal bone loss of implants placed simultaneously with either bone expansion or ridge splitting in maxillary sites: a prospective non-randomized study

This study was performed to compare the amount of marginal bone loss (MBL) and the success rate of implants placed following maxillary ridge expansion with two surgical techniques. A non-randomized prospective study was designed. The patients underwent either bone expansion or ridge splitting, and simultaneous implant placement. The implants were loaded according to the delayed loading protocol with single crowns. Each study group included 35 implants placed in 31 patients. One year after loading, the implant success rate was 100 % in both groups. The median MBL was 1.00 mm in both groups (interquartile range 0.10 mm in the bone expansion group and 0.30 mm in the ridge splitting group) (no significant difference, P = 0.749). The median MBL around implants placed in sites with D2, D3, and D4 density bone was 1.40 mm, 1.00 mm, and 0.80 mm in the expansion group and 1.50 mm, 1.00 mm, and 0.85 mm in the splitting group, respectively. There was a significant difference in MBL between the different bone density types within both groups (P < 0.001). In conclusion, no significant difference in the amount of MBL or the success rate was observed between implants placed simultaneously with ridge splitting and those placed simultaneously with bone expansion, in the maxilla.

Association of Peri-Implant Keratinized Mucosa Width and Mucosal Thickness with Early Bone Loss: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of keratinized mucosa width (KMW) and mucosal thickness (MT) around dental implants on marginal bone loss (MBL). The evaluation was performed one year after loading by comparing clinical, radiographic, and biochemical parameters. Methods: The study included 87 implants in 87 patients undergoing regular follow-ups without hard or soft tissue augmentation one year after loading. Clinical measurements included plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD), KMW, and MT. MBL was assessed with periapical radiography. The peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) was analyzed for tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand (RANKL), osteoprotegerin (OPG), and microRNA-27a. Results: The MBL of implants with thin MT (<2 mm) was higher than that of implants with thick MT (≥2 mm) (p < 0.05). A significant negative correlation (r: -0.217) was established between MT and MBL. No significant association was found between KMW and MBL (p > 0.05). No significant associations was found between KMW and MT with TNF-α, RANKL, OPG and RANKL/OPG (p > 0.05), with the exception of increased microRNA-27a levels in implants with KMW ≥ 2 mm (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Implants with a thick MT had a lower MBL. There may be an association between adequate KMW and high miRNA-27a levels. The relationship between MBL and miRNA-27a remains unclear.

Could Fixed Implants Be a Viable Treatment Option in Disabled Patients? A Clinical Retrospective Study.

To verify the survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants in patients with different disability types. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed in a total of 189 implants for fixed implant prostheses in 72 patients. Data were collected on loaded implants at least 1 year in function, and the mean observation time was 37.3 months. Implant survival was examined, and MBL was observed around the implants of two groups (mental disability vs physical disability) based on age, sex, implant location (anterior vs posterior), and prosthetic connection (internal vs external). Of the 189 implants, 4 failed; the total implant survival rate was 97.8% across a mean of 37.3 months. The cumulative survival rate at 85 months in a Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis was 94.3% ± 3% in patients with mental disability and 50% ± 35.4% in patients with physical disability, which was a statistically significant difference between the disability groups (P = .006). Fisher exact test showed significant differences in MBL only with age (P < .001). The implant MBL by disability type-adjusted for age and observation period-showed significant differences in multiple linear regression analyses (P = .003). The implant survival rates in patients with disability were in line with those reported for nondisabled patients. The MBL of the implants was within the physiologic bone loss after implant loading. Implants in patients with mental disability showed higher cumulative survival rates than in patients with physical disability, but also a higher amount of MBL. Within the limitations of this study, dental implants for patients with disability are viable. These results can establish future implant treatment plans for this population. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:562-568. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9880.

Marginal Bone Level and Clinical Parameter Analysis Comparing External Hexagon and Morse Taper Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The goal of this systematic review was to verify the marginal bone loss (MBL) and other clinical parameters comparing external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) implants when they were evaluated within the same study. The focused question was, "For patients (P) treated with external connection (I) or Morse taper (C) dental implants, were there differences in the marginal bone crest maintenance after at least three months in occlusal function (O)"? As for the inclusion criteria that were considered, they included clinical studies in English that compared the MBL in implants with EH and MT, with follow-up of at least three months, that were published between 2011 and 2022; as for the exclusion criteria, they included publications investigating only one type of connection that analyzed other variables and did not report results for the MBL, reports based on questionnaires, interviews, and case reports/series, systematic reviews, or studies involving patients with a significant health problem (ASA Physical Status 3 and above). The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were screened, and all of the data obtained were registered in a spreadsheet (Excel®). The Jadad scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. A total of 110 articles were initially identified; 11 were considered for full-text reading. Then, six articles (four RCTs and two prospective studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. A total of 185 patients (mean age of 59.71) were observed, and the follow-up ranged from 3 months to 36 months. A total of 541 implants were registered (267 EH and 274 MT). The survival rate ranged between 96% and 100% (the average was 97.82%). The MBL was compared among all periods studied; therefore, the common assessment period was the 12-month follow-up, presenting greater MBL for EH than for MT (p < 0.001). A mean MBL of 0.60 mm (95% CI 0.43-0.78) was found after the same period. BoP was reported in 5 studies and plaque index was reported in 4 (2 with more than 30%). Deep PD was observed in three studies. High heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 85.06%). Thus, within the limitation of this review, it was possible to conclude that there is higher bone loss in EH than in MT implants when evaluating and comparing this variable within the same study. However, the results must be carefully interpreted because of this review's limited number of clinical studies, the short assessment period, and the high heterogeneity found.

Clinical and radiographic evaluations of implants as surveyed crowns for Class I removable partial dentures: A retrospective study.

PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to evaluate survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants in IC-RPDs.MATERIALS AND METHODSSeventy implants were placed and used as surveyed crowns in 30 RPDs. The survival rates and MBL around implants based on multiple variables, e.g., position, sex, age, opposing dentitions, splinting, type of used retainer, and first year bone loss, were analyzed. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding functional/esthetic improvement after IC-RPD treatment, and complications were also inspected.RESULTSThe 100% implant survival rates were observed, and 60 of those implants showed MBL levels less than 1.5 mm. No significant differences in MBL of implants were observed between implant positions (maxilla vs. mandible; P = .341) and type of used retainers (P = .630). The implant MBL of greater than 0.5 mm at 1 year showed significantly higher MBL after that (P < .001). Splinted implant surveyed crowns showed lower MBL in the maxilla (splinted vs. non-splinted; P = .037). There were significant esthetic/functional improvements observed after treatment, but there were no significant differences in esthetic results based on implant position (maxilla vs. mandible). Implants in mandible showed significantly greater improvement in function than implants in the maxilla (P = .002). Prosthetic complication of IC-RPD was not observed frequently. However, 2 abutment teeth among 60 were failed. The bone loss of abutment teeth was lower than MBL of implants in IC-RPDs (P = .001).CONCLUSIONClass I RPD connected to residual teeth and strategically positioned implants as surveyed crowns can be a viable treatment modality.

Clinical application of integrated angulated screw channel abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of aesthetic area.

To evaluate the clinical effect of integrated angulated screw channel (ASC) abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of the aesthetic area. Sixteen patients who received single implant-supported rehabilitation using integrated ASC abutment crown in the aesthetic area were included in the study. After one-year follow-up, the cumulative survival rate, aesthetic effectiveness, bone resorption around implants, and patient satisfaction were analyzed through periapical film, clinical examination, and the visual analog scale (VAS). The implant cumulative survival rate of the integrated ASC abutment crown in the implant-supported rehabilitation of the aesthetic area was 100%. The average pink esthetic index scores reached 9.5, and the white esthetic index scores reached 9.4. The mean marginal bone loss of implants was (0.439±0.123) mm at the mesial side and (0.341±0.118) mm at the distal side. The average VAS satisfaction score was 8.9, which showed that all patients were satisfied with the final restorative effect. Using integrated ASC abutment crown for implant restoration is an ideal implant restoration design in the aesthetic zone and can be applied clinically.

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness of High Insertion Torques on Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants in Posterior Mandible

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness of High Insertion Torques on Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants in Posterior Mandible

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness of High Insertion Torques on Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants in Posterior Mandible

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness of High Insertion Torques on Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants in Posterior Mandible

Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo evaluate the survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant biological changes of immediately loaded dental implants (ILs) placed in type 2 diabetic patients (DM2).Materials and methodsThe present study was registered on PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA checklist. The search was performed by the first reviewer in January 2021. The electronic databases used were MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and gray literature. The risk of bias analysis was performed using an instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute.ResultsA total of 3566 titles and abstracts were obtained. The qualitative synthesis included 7 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 5 studies. The meta-analysis of IL in individuals with DM2 compared to nondiabetic individuals showed no significant difference among the groups regarding the survival rate of dental implants (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.96–1.04; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%), even if the patient had poor glycemic control (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.87–1.33; p = 0.48; I2 = 70%). Meta-analysis of marginal bone loss in IL compared to conventional loading in DM2 patients also showed no significant difference (mean difference = − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.25–0.08; p = 0.33; I2 = 83%).ConclusionsType 2 diabetes mellitus does not seem to be a risk factor for immediately loaded implants if the glycemic level is controlled, the oral hygiene is satisfactory, and the technical steps are strictly followed.Clinical relevanceRehabilitation in diabetic individuals is more common due to the highest prevalence of edentulism in this population. It is essential to establish appropriate protocols for loading dental implants.

Clinical Outcomes of Immediate Implant Loading with Fixed Prostheses in Edentulous Maxillae: A Systematic Review.

To review the evidence from the clinical outcomes of immediately loaded implants with fixed prostheses in edentulous maxillae. An electronic search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate loading with fixed dental prostheses in edentulous maxillae. Only clinical studies with more than 10 patients and a mean follow-up time of more than 12 months were included. Meta-analysis was utilized to compare the clinical outcomes between immediately loaded implants and conventionally loaded implants. For immediately loaded implants, a cumulative implant survival rate (ISR) was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants. The weighted marginal bone loss (MBL) was also assessed. A total of 33 studies (16 retrospective studies and 17 prospective studies) were included, which involved 2,635 patients and 12,480 implants. Meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference of ISR or MBL between the two loading groups. For immediately loaded implants, the weighted cumulative ISR was 95.53% (median: 97.50%) with a mean follow-up of 46.07 months (SD: 30.92). Fourteen studies reported on the MBL of implants, and the mean MBL was 1.19 mm (SD: 0.88) with a mean period of 57.70 months (SD: 32.56). The results should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the heterogeneity of the data. Despite the lack of RCTs, immediate implant loading with a fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla seems to be a reliable treatment alternative with a high ISR, when appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria are followed.

Long-Term Comparison of Survival and Marginal Bone of Implants with and without Sinus Augmentation in Maxillary Molars within the Same Patients: A 5.8- to 22-Year Retrospective Study

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is widely used and considered a predictable procedure for implant placement. However, the influence of MSFA on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) is still inconclusive. The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the long-term genuine influence of MSFA on the survival and MBL of implants by comparing those with and without MSFA only in maxillary molars within the same patients. Thirty-eight patients (28 male and 10 female), with a total of 119 implants, received implants with and without MSFA, and were followed up for 5.8 to 22 years. Patient- and implant-related factors were assessed with a frailty model for implant survival and with generalized estimation equations (GEE) for MBL around the implant. No variables showed a statistical significance for implant failure in the frailty model. In GEE analysis for MBL, MSFA did not show any statistical significance. In conclusion, MSFA demonstrated no significant influence on implant failure and MBL in posterior maxilla in this study.

Stability and marginal bone loss in implants placed using piezoelectric osteotomy versus conventional drilling: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background The main objective of this systematic review was to compare primary and secondary implant stability between placement with piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, comparing marginal bone losses as a secondary objective. Material and Methods An electronic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases, besides a manual search. Results A total of 153 articles were retrieved, 39 from Pubmed, 44 from Scopus, and 70 from the Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates, 112 articles (1 from the manual search) were screened, and 9 were finally selected for qualitative and statistical analyses. Conclusions Piezoelectric surgery is a predictable alternative to conventional drilling for dental implant placement. Medium/long-term survival rates and marginal bone losses are similar between piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, and there is no difference in ISQ values for primary stability. However, implants placed with ultrasound showed a lower decrease in implant stability quotient (ISQ) during the osseointegration period and a higher ISQ value for secondary stability. This study contributes further information on peri-implant bone tissue at 3 and 6 months after implant placement with piezoelectric osteotomy or conventional drilling and provides an updated meta-analysis of comparative studies. Key words:Piezosurgery, piezoelectric surgery, conventional drill, implant site preparation, dental implant, implant stability, marginal bone loss.

Marginal Bone Loss in Implants with External Connection versus Internal Conical Connection Prior to Prosthetic Loading. A Randomized Clinical Study

Introduction: The prosthetic connection of implants has been related to the loss of marginal bone. The aim of this study was to evaluate bone loss around external connection (EC) and internal conical connection (ICC) implants prior to prosthetic loading. Material and methods: A randomized clinical trial (RCT) was carried out, with a sample size of 93 implants (31 EC and 62 ICC) placed in 27 patients. Radiological controls were performed and stability was measured by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) on the day of placement, at 1 month and at 4 months after the placement. Results: Bone loss in EC implants was not statistically different than in ICC implants between the time of placement (T0) and the subsequent month (T1): (EC = 0.18 mm and ICC = 0.17 mm). Between one month (T1) and four months (T2): (EC = 0.39 mm and ICC = 0.19 mm) this difference was highly significant (p = 0.00). Bone loss between T0 and T2 was significantly lower in the ICC (EC = 0.57 mm and ICC = 0.36 mm), (p = 0.01). The overall success rate of the implants was 97.8%. The stability of the implants increased from 70.69 (T0) to 73.91 (T1) and 75.32 (T2). Conclusions: ICC showed less bone loss up to the time of prosthesis placement. Such bone loss did not have a significant impact on bone stability. Long term RCTs are needed to demonstrate whether this bone loss, which is more pronounced at the beginning in EC, tends to stabilize and equate to ICC.

Factors Affecting Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants Placed by Post-Graduate Students: A 1-Year Prospective Cohort Study.

Statement of the problem: Most of the clinical documentation of implant success and survival published in the literature have been issued by either experienced teams from university settings involving strict patient selection criteria or from seasoned private practitioners. By contrast, studies focusing on implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students are scarce. Purpose: To record failure rates and identify the contributing factors to implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up. Material and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on study participants scheduled for implant therapy at the International University of Catalonia. An experienced mentor determined the treatment plan in accordance with the need of each participant who signed an informed consent. All surgeries and prosthetic rehabilitation were performed by the post-graduate students. Implant failure rate, contributors to implant failure, and MBL were investigated among 24 variables related to patient health, local site, and implant and prosthetic characteristics. The risk of implant failure was analyzed with a simple binary logistic regression model with generalized equation equations (GEE) models, obtaining unadjusted odds ratios (OR). The relationship between MBL and the other independent variables was studied by simple linear regression estimated with GEE models and the Wald chi2 test. Results: One hundred and thirty dental implants have been placed and rehabilitated by post-graduate students. Five implants failed before loading and none after restoration delivery; survival and success rates were 96.15% and 94.62%, respectively. None of the investigated variables significantly affected the implant survival rate. At the one-year follow-up, the mean (SD) MBL was 0.53 (0.39) mm. The following independent variables significantly affected the MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement. The width of keratinized tissue (KT) and probing depth (PD) above 3 mm were found to be good indicators of MBL, with each additional mm of probing depth resulting in 0.11 mm more MBL. Conclusion: The survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up were high. No contributing factor was identified regarding implant failure. However, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and width of KT. Clinical Implications: Survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students were high at the one-year follow-up, similar to experienced practitioners. No contributing factors were identified regarding implant failure; however, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and KM.

Effect of Rough Surface Platforms on the Mucosal Attachment and the Marginal Bone Loss of Implants: A Dog Study.

The preservation of peri-implant tissues is an important factor for implant success. This study aimed to assess the influence of the surface features of a butt-joint platform on soft-tissue attachment and bone resorption after immediate or delayed implant placement. All premolars and first molars of eight Beagle dogs were extracted on one mandible side. Twelve-weeks later, the same surgery was developed on the other side. Five implants with different platform surface configurations were randomly inserted into the post-extracted-sockets. On the healed side, the same five different implants were randomly placed. Implants were inserted 1 mm subcrestal to the buccal bony plate and were connected to abutments. The primary outcome variables were the supracrestal soft tissue (SST) adaptation and the bone resorption related to the implant shoulder. The SST height was significantly larger in immediate implants (IC95% 3.9–4.9 mm) compared to delayed implants (IC95% 3.1–3.5 mm). Marginal bone loss tended to be higher in immediate implants (IC95% 0.4–0.9 mm) than in delayed implants (IC95% 0.3–0.8 mm). Linear-regression analysis suggested that the SST height was significantly affected by the configuration of the platform (0.3–1.9 mm). Roughened surface platforms resulted in higher SST height when compared to machined surface platforms. Marginal bone loss was less pronounced in roughened designs.

Clinical and radiographic evaluations of implant-supported cantilever fixed partial dentures replacing maxillary anterior teeth: A randomized clinical trial

Statement of problemReplacing maxillary or mandibular anterior teeth with implant-supported prostheses is challenging because of the small mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions, which can affect the number and position of implants and thus the definitive prosthetic design. PurposeThe purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with implant-supported cantilever fixed partial dentures (ICFPDs) compared with implant-supported conventional fixed partial dentures to replace maxillary anterior teeth. Material and methodsFourteen participants missing 2 central incisors and 1 lateral incisor (6 men and 8 women) with a mean age of 40 years (range, 30 to 50 years) were divided equally into 2 groups, the IFF group (n=7; implant-supported FPD design) and the ICF group (n=7; ICFPD). Each participant received 2 implants (13×3.75) according to the fixed partial denture design. All participants were evaluated in terms of the implant stability, peri-implant sulcus depth, marginal bone loss, gingival index, and plaque index at the baseline and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. ResultsThe clinical results revealed no significant difference between the 2 groups in the implant stability, gingival index, or plaque index over the follow-up period. However, regarding the average peri-implant sulcus depth, the implant adjacent to the cantilever showed a significant difference compared with the other implants after 24 months, with an average peri-implant sulcus depth of 2 mm, which was still within the typical range. The average marginal bone loss for implants near the cantilever was significantly higher than that for the other implants in the 2 designs, with a value of 1.8 mm at the 2-year follow-up examination, which was also within the typical range of bone loss per year. ConclusionsUnder the conditions of this randomized clinical trial, implant-supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses can be used successfully to replace maxillary anterior teeth.

2-years retrospective observational case-control study on survival and marginal bone loss of implants in patients with hereditary coagulopathies.

Evaluating 2-years implant loss and marginal bone loss in patients with hereditary coagulopathies, comparing with a healthy control group. 37 implants in 13 patients (17 haemophilia A, 20 Von-Willebrand disease) versus 26 implants in 13 healthy patients. Data measured through Lagervall-Jansson index (after surgery, at prosthetic loading, at 2 years). Chi-square, Haberman's, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney-U. Significance p<0.05. Haemorrhagic accidents in 2 coagulopathies patients (non-statistical differences). Hereditary coagulopathies patients suffered more hepatitis (p<0.05), HIV (p<0.05) and less previous periodontitis (p<0.01). Non-statistical differences in marginal bone loss among groups. 2 implants were lost in the hereditary coagulopathies and none in the control group (non-statistical differences). Hereditary coagulopathies patients had longer (p<0.001), and narrower implants (p<0.05) placed. 43.2% external prosthetic connection in hereditary coagulopathies patients (p<0.001); change of prosthetic platform more frequent in control group (p<0.05). 2 implants lost: external connection (p<0.05). Survival rate 96.8% (hereditary coagulopathies 94.6%, control group 100%). Implant and marginal bone loss at 2 years is similar in patients with hereditary coagulopathies and control group. Precautions should be taken on the treatment for hereditary coagulopathies patients, through prior haematological protocol. Implant loss only occurred in in a patient with Von-Willebrand´s disease.

Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss for implants placed at crestal and subcrestal level were included. Pooled estimates from comparable studies were analyzed using a continuous random-effects model meta-analysis with the objective of assessing differences in crestal bone loss between the two vertical positions. Results: 16 studies were included; 10 studies did not encounter statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to bone loss. Three articles found greater bone loss in subcrestal implants; while 3 found more bone loss in crestal implants. A meta-analysis for randomized control trial (RCT) studies reported an average and non-statistically different crestal bone loss of 0.028 mm. Conclusions: A high survival rate and a comparable bone loss was obtained both for crestal and subcrestal implants’ placement. Quantitative analysis considering a homogenous sample confirms that both vertical positions are equally valid in terms of perimplant bone loss. However, with respect to soft tissue; in presence of a thin tissue; a subcrestal placement of the implant should be preferred as it may reduce the probability for the implant to become exposed in the future and thus avoid the risk of suffering from peri-implant pathologies.

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols. An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables). Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference=-0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.06, 0.025; P=0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference=-0.008; 95% CI=-0.044, 0.028; P=0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P=0.001; weighted mean difference=-0.14mm; 95% CI=-0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables. The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.

Clinical outcome of immediately and early loaded implants with laser treated surface: a 3-year retrospective study.

PURPOSEThe marginal bone loss of implants with laser treated surface was investigated after six weeks of loading after implant installation to the mandible molar area.MATERIALS AND METHODSA total of 23 implants were placed in the edentulous molar area of the mandible: 13 implants were immediately loaded and 10 implants were early loaded. The implants used were made of titanium grade 23, screw shaped, 4.2 mm in diameter, and 10 mm in length. Patients were evaluated with resonance frequency analysis at implant fixture installation and 1, 2 (final prosthesis installation), 3, 5, 8, and 14 months later. X-rays were taken at 2 months after fixture installation and 1, 2, 3 years after to measure the marginal bone loss.RESULTSThe mean ISQ value measured at the implant installation was over 70 at all-time points. The average of marginal bone loss was average 0.33 mm.CONCLUSIONImmediate implant loading for laser treated implants would be possible.