PURPOSE. To compare the clinical outcomes of single, partial and complete fixed im-plant-supported prostheses immediately loaded (within 48 hours), early loaded at 6 we-eks, and conventionally loaded at 3 months (delayed loading). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-four patients (18 requiring single implants, 18 partial fixed prostheses, and 18 total fixed cross-arch prostheses) were randomised in equal numbers in two private practices to immediate loading (18 patients), early loading (18 patients), and conventional loading (18 patients) according to a parallel group design with three arms. To be immediately or early loaded, implants had to be inserted with a torque superior to 40 Ncm. Implants were initially loaded with provisional prostheses, replaced after 4 months by definitive ones. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failu-res, complications and peri-implant marginal bone levels. RESULTS. Two conventionally loaded patients rehabilitated with cross-arch fixed total prostheses dropped-out before 3-year post-loading follow-up. No implant failed. One early-loaded partial prosthesis had to be remade (P = 1.0). Three complications occurred in the immediately loaded group, two in the early-loaded and one in the conventionally loaded group with no statistically significant differences across groups (P = 0.861). Pe-ri-implant marginal bone loss was-0.04 ± 0.85 mm at immediately loaded implants,-0.01 ± 0.55 mm at early-loaded implants and 0.33 ± 0.36 mm at conventional loaded implants with no statistically significant differences between the three loading strategies (P=0.191). CONCLUSIONS. All loading strategies were highly successful, and no differences were observed in terms of implant survival and complications when implants were loaded immediately, early or conventionally.

IMMEDIATE, EARLY (6 WEEKS) AND DELAYED LOADING (3 MONTHS) OF SINGLE, PARTIAL AND FULL FIXED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHESES: THREE-YEAR POST-LOADING DATA FROM A MULTICENTRE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Sbricoli L.;
2019

Abstract

PURPOSE. To compare the clinical outcomes of single, partial and complete fixed im-plant-supported prostheses immediately loaded (within 48 hours), early loaded at 6 we-eks, and conventionally loaded at 3 months (delayed loading). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-four patients (18 requiring single implants, 18 partial fixed prostheses, and 18 total fixed cross-arch prostheses) were randomised in equal numbers in two private practices to immediate loading (18 patients), early loading (18 patients), and conventional loading (18 patients) according to a parallel group design with three arms. To be immediately or early loaded, implants had to be inserted with a torque superior to 40 Ncm. Implants were initially loaded with provisional prostheses, replaced after 4 months by definitive ones. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failu-res, complications and peri-implant marginal bone levels. RESULTS. Two conventionally loaded patients rehabilitated with cross-arch fixed total prostheses dropped-out before 3-year post-loading follow-up. No implant failed. One early-loaded partial prosthesis had to be remade (P = 1.0). Three complications occurred in the immediately loaded group, two in the early-loaded and one in the conventionally loaded group with no statistically significant differences across groups (P = 0.861). Pe-ri-implant marginal bone loss was-0.04 ± 0.85 mm at immediately loaded implants,-0.01 ± 0.55 mm at early-loaded implants and 0.33 ± 0.36 mm at conventional loaded implants with no statistically significant differences between the three loading strategies (P=0.191). CONCLUSIONS. All loading strategies were highly successful, and no differences were observed in terms of implant survival and complications when implants were loaded immediately, early or conventionally.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3465495
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact