The cumulative survival rate of 96% at 1 and 2 years indicates that immediate function of Brånemark implants used in the esthetic zone in both jaws can be a viable concept. All failures occurred in fresh extraction sites, and extra care is recommended to avoid situations with ongoing inflammation in these situations.

Background: Originally, the Brånemark System was used as a two‐stage surgical procedure. Comparable clinical results have made one‐stage and early‐loading concepts possible alternatives in the edentulous mandible. From the patient's point of view, the financial aspect of implant treatment is important. In an attempt to decrease financial burden, the reduction of surgical interventions and reduction of the number of implants could be considered. Purpose: This prospective multicenter study evaluated (1) the 1‐and 3‐year success rates of implants loaded within 1 month after one‐stage surgery with a fixed 10‐ to 12‐unit bridge on three regular platform Brånemark System implants in the mandible, (2) the outcome of the prosthetic treatment, and (3) the opinion of patients regarding the treatment procedure. Materials and Methods: Of 20 patients, 19 received five implants in the mandible, of which three were functionally loaded with the one‐stage technique (group 1). The loaded implants were inserted in a tripodal position, one implant in the symphysis and two located anterior of the mental foramen in the bicuspid area. Two additional implants were inserted for safety reasons but were not intended to be included in the restoration. These two additional implants served as either an unloaded one‐stage control implant (group 2) or an unloaded control implant installed with the submerged technique (group 3). Immediately after surgery, the implants were loaded with a relined denture. The patients received a 10‐ to 12‐unit prosthetic reconstruction an average 31 days (range, 4‐53 d) after surgery. Implant stability was clinically checked at 3, 12, and 36 months. Radiographs were taken at corresponding follow‐up visits to calculate bone‐to‐implant level and marginal bone resorption. Results: Six of 60 functionally loaded implants (10%) and 3 of 20 prostheses (15%) failed within the first year. The cumulative implant failure rate in group 1, both after 1 and after 3 years, was 9.5%. No implant failure occurred in the control groups 2 and 3. The average marginal bone level measured at 1 and 3 years was 1.6 mm (SD = 0.8 mm) and 2.1 mm (SD = 0.2 mm), respectively, for group 1; 1.5 mm (SD = 1.3 mm) and 2.4 mm (SD = 0.6 mm), respectively, for group 2; 0.8 mm (SD = 1.4 mm) and 0.7 mm (SD = 0.9 mm), respectively, for group 3. Conclusions: The results of treatment using three regular platform Brånemark System implants supporting a fixed mandibular arch reconstruction were less favorable than the outcome that can be expected with a standard four‐ to six‐implant with one‐stage surgery.