A significant no-load healing period is the generally accepted prerequisite for osseointegration in dental implantology. The aim of this article was to examine whether this no-load healing period is validated by the experimental literature. In vivo histological data was scrutinized to identify the effect of early loading protocols on the bone-implant interface. Several loading modes were identified. They were categorized into groups according to implant design and the type of prosthetic reconstruction, and by their ability to introduce a distinct magnitude of motion at the interface. Specific histologic responses of early loaded implants (i.e., fibrous repair or osseointegration) were suggested to be directly related to the specific combinations of the above parameters. Early loading per se was not found to be detrimental to osseointegration. Specifically, only excessive micromotion was directly implicated in the formation of fibrous encapsulation. The literature suggests that there is a critical threshold of micromotion above which fibrous encapsulation prevails over osseointegration. This critical level, however, was not zero micromotion as generally interpreted. Instead, the tolerated micromotion threshold was found to lie somewhere between 50 and 150 microns. Suggestions are made for the earliest loading time that achieves osseointegration.

In oral implantology, a 3-6 month stress-free healing period is presently accepted as a prerequisite to achieve bone apposition without interposition of a fibrous scar tissue. This protocol was introduced by Brånemark and co-workers in 1977. The aim of the present paper is to review the reasons that led Brånemark and collaborators to require long delayed loading periods. It is shown that the requirement for long delayed loading periods was drawn from the initiation and development periods of their original clinical trial. Demanding conditions were met involving simultaneously: 1) patients with poor bone quality and quantity, 2) non-optimized implant design, 3) short implants, 4) non-optimized surgical placement, 5) non-optimized surgical protocol and 6) biomechanically non-optimized prosthesis. Extrapolation of the requirement for long healing periods from these particular conditions to more standard situations involving refined surgical protocols and careful patient selection might be questioned. Albeit premature loading has been interpreted as inducing fibrous tissue interposition, immediate loading per se is not responsible for fibrous encapsulation. It is the excess of micromotion during the healing phase that interferes with bone repair. A threshold of tolerated micromotion exists, that is somewhere between 50 microns and 150 microns. It is suggested that loading protocols might be shortened through 2 different approaches. The first way would be to decrease stepwise the delayed loading period for free-standing implants below the presently accepted 3-6 months of healing. The second way would be to identify immediate loading protocols that are capable of keeping the amount of micromotion beneath the threshold of deleterious micromotion. Immediate loading protocols for implants-retained overdentures and fixed bridges are reviewed. It is shown that successful premature loading protocols require a careful and strict patient selection aimed to achieve the best primary stability. These various protocols need to be further documented in order to assess their predictability.