Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants.

RESULTS: The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.