A randomized, 12-month controlled trial to evaluate non-inferiority of early compared to conventional loading of modSLA implants in single tooth gaps

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether early loading of implants with a chemically modified sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) (SLActive®) surface was non-inferior to conventional loading in terms of change in crestal bone level.MethodsThis was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Patients requiring single-tooth rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla or mandible received implants and were randomized to receive a provisional restoration in occlusal load after 25 ± 3 days (early loading) or after 13 ± 1 weeks (conventional loading). The primary endpoint was change in crestal bone level between implant placement (baseline) and 6 months. Secondary endpoints included change in crestal bone level between baseline and 12 months, implant survival and success rates, and patient satisfaction.ResultsOf the 84 patients enrolled, 78 received implants and were randomized onto the early loading (41 patients) and conventional loading (37 patients) groups. The mean change in crestal bone level between baseline and 6 months was 0.56 ± 0.58 and 0.51 ± 0.62 mm for early and conventional loading, respectively; at 12 months, the mean change was 0.76 ± 0.60 and 0.73 ± 0.77 mm, respectively. Implant survival and success at 12 months were 100 % for both groups. Patient satisfaction was similar between the groups, except that more patients in the early loading group were satisfied or highly satisfied with the time taken for fitting.ConclusionThe study demonstrated that early implant loading was non-inferior to conventional implant loading in terms of crestal bone level change in a Japanese patient population in short follow-up period and single tooth gaps in molar regions.

An evaluation of superhydrophilic surfaces of dental implants - a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Slotte et al assessed patient satisfaction on the basis of a non-specific questionnaire, which was filled in by the patients on completion of the treatment [34]. In turn, when describing patient satisfaction following treatment Dard M. et al observed that in cases of shorter treatment duration due to earlier implant loading patients had a more positive view of their experience than patients whose treatment followed the standard procedure [24].…”

“…[17]201477posterior maxilla and mandiblePFM and provisional crownsone-stage240100Held et al [18]201334posterior maxilla and mandiblePFM crownstwo-stage16197Hicklin et.al. [19]201520posterior maxillaprovisional crownstwo-stage60100Hinkle et al [20]201424posterior maxilla and mandibleprovisional crownsone-stage12196Le Gac et al [21]20151337maxilla and mandibleall Typesone- and two-stage24–60799.5Liaje et al [22]201323maxilla and mandiblePFM crownsone-stage120100Yu et al [23]201620maxillaPFM crownsone-stage120100Hadzik et al [11]201716mandiblePFM crownstwo-stage90;Dard et al [24]201675maxilla and mandiblePFM crownstwo-stage120100Allen et al [25]201620maxillaPFM crownstwo-stage240100Al-Nawas et al [26]2012160mandiblelocatorsone-stage12398Calvo-Guirado et al [27]201640mandiblePFM crownstwo-stage12197.5Ganales et al [28]2008383maxilla and mandiblePMF crowns, composite on metal...…”

“…[17]2014not reported0.9 ± 0.5not reportednot reported0Held et al [18]20131.46 ± 0.7not reported43 ± 968 ± 102Hicklin et.al. [19]20150.97not reported78800Hinkle et al [20]20141.10 ± 0.580.99 ± 0.29not reportednot reported1Le Gac et al [21]2015not reportednot reportednot reportednot reported7Liaje et al [22]20130.14 ± 0.050.20 ± 0.4078.39 ± 3.9576.17 ± 4.450Yu et al [23]2016not reported0.35 ± 0.60 (24 months)not reportednot reported0Hadzik et al [11]20170.53 ± 0.2 (3 months)0.57 ± 0.3 (9 months)66.5 ± 16.573.9 ± 8.40Dard et al [24]20160.53 ± 0.60.74 ± 0.68not reportednot reported0Allen et al [25]2016not reported0.81 24 months68.0474.630Al-Nawas et al [26]20120.23 ± 0.370.32 ± 0.55not reportednot reported3Calvo-Guirado et al [27]20160.64 ± 0.380.71 ± 0.1175.22 ± 1.2378.33 ± 1.761Ganeles et al [28]2008not reported0.77 ± 0.93not reportednot reported10Markovic et al [29]2016not reportednot reported71.22 ± 6.0567.68 ± 3.270Morton et al [30]20100.250.21not reportednot reported…”

Interdisciplinary treatment of mutilated dentition and transverse maxillary deficiency with microimplant‐assisted rapid palatal expansion, microimplants, and dental implants

“…Dental implant-supported protheses 20,[35][36][37] have been developed to restore missing teeth. They are highly successful with low complication rates, influenced by various factors such as periodontal and medical conditions.…”

“…The key to success with dental implants is proper osteointegration which normally takes several weeks of healing. Some studies 35,36 indicated that there was little difference in clinical outcomes with conventional loading versus early loading, but not all clinicians achieved the same results 35 . And immediate loading in the maxillary anterior region was known to have a higher failure rate compared to conventional loading, which could result in an increase in treatment time and cost and dissatisfaction of the patient and dentist 23 .…”