ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title Conventional loading dental implants have a higher success rate than immediate loading implants
Clinical Question In patients receiving a single tooth implant with a crown, do conventional loading implants have a higher success rate than immediate loading implants?
Clinical Bottom Line Conventional loading implants have a higher success rate than immediate loading implants. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 19639076Atieh/2009Patients with single implant crowns – a total of 248 implants Meta-analysis
Key resultsThe meta-analysis found that immediate loading implants were associated with a higher risk of implant failure. (relative risk: 5.07, 95% CI 2.00 to 12.84, p<.001)
Evidence Search "Dental Implants, Single-Tooth"[Mesh] Limits: Humans, Meta-Analysis, Search "Dental Implants, Single-Tooth"[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
Both a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies were done of randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies that compared immediate with conventional loading of single implant crown. A comprehensive and detailed search found 105 articles and after screening those articles for validity, 5 studies were selected. This resulted in the analysis of 248 implants.
Applicability This meta-analysis evaluated a common patient need for dental implants and reviewed an important consideration for treatment of patients. The 5-fold increased risk for complications with immediate loading of implants is an important factor in determining a patient’s treatment.
Specialty/Discipline (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics)
Keywords
ID# 550
Date of submission: 04/14/2010spacer
E-mail normans@livmail.uthscsa.edu
Author Sarah Norman
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Thomas Oates, DMD, PhD
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail OATES@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
by Carl Drago (Waukesha) on 04/12/2016
Interesting study. I have found that there is a huge difference in "loading" single unit implant restorations in the literature as compared to single unit implant restorations inserted without occlusal contact of any kind. The M and M has to be carefully reviewed as sometimes authors write of "loading" single units, but in actual fact, the restorations are out of contact. This lends itself to great confusion and inconsistent results.
by Marielaina Perrone, DDS (Henderson, Nevada) on 07/27/2012
Just the research I was looking for; thank you for posting it up here for all to see. Great Job!
by Johnson, R. (Seattle, WA) on 07/09/2012
This is an interesting topic that impacts more and more practitioners these days as everyone is getting their hands on implants. RCT PMID: 20443801 from 2010 supports this CAT, while RCTs from 2009 and 2010 (PMID: 19722788 and 20412091, respectively) seem to present what may be changing tides. Jury is apparently still out, let’s see where technology takes us!
spacer

Return to Found CATs list