OBJECTIVE: Immediate and early loading of dental implants can simplify treatment and increase overall patient satisfaction. The purpose of this 3-year prospective randomized-controlled multicenter study was to assess the differences in survival rates and bone level changes between immediately and early-loaded implants with a new chemically modified surface (SLActive). This investigation shows interim results obtained after 5 months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients > or =18 years of age missing at least one tooth in the posterior maxilla or mandible were enrolled in the study. Following implant placement, patients received a temporary restoration either on the day of surgery (immediate loading) or 28-34 days after surgery (early loading); restorations consisted of single crowns or two to four unit fixed dental prostheses. Permanent restorations were placed 20-23 weeks following surgery. The primary efficacy variable was change in bone level (assessed by standardized radiographs) from baseline to 5 months; secondary variables included implant survival and success rates. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients were enrolled (118 males and 148 females), and a total of 383 implants were placed (197 and 186 in the immediate and early loading groups, respectively). Mean patient age was 46.3+/-12.8 years. After 5 months, implant survival rates were 98% in the immediate group and 97% in the early group. Mean bone level change from baseline was 0.81+/-0.89 mm in the immediate group and 0.56+/-0.73 mm in the early group (P<0.05). Statistical analysis revealed a significant center effect (P<0.0001) and a significant treatment x center interaction (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that Straumann implants with an SLActive can be used predictably in time-critical (early or immediate) loading treatment protocols when appropriate patient selection criteria are observed. The mean bone level changes observed from baseline to 5 months (0.56 and 0.81 mm) corresponded to physiological observations from other studies, i.e., were not clinically significant. The presence of a significant center effect and treatment x center interaction indicated that the differences in bone level changes between the two groups were center dependent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zöllner et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: