J P Singh1, A K Gupta2, R K Dhiman3, S K Roy Chowdhury4. 1. Commandant & Command Dental Adviser, Command Military Dental Centre (Eastern Command), Kolkata, India. 2. Commandant, 33 Corps Dental Unit, C/o 99 APO, India. 3. Commanding Officer & Corps Dental Advisor, 14 Corps Dental Unit, C/o 56 APO, India. 4. Dy Comdt, Armed Forces Dental Clinic, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attempts to shorten the overall length of treatment have focused on immediate loading, subsequent to implant placement. Prosthetic rehabilitation immediately after implant placement can be either functional or non-functional in nature. There is paucity of literature on the comparative evaluation of immediate functional and immediate non-functional loading of implants. This in-vivo study was undertaken to comparatively evaluate Immediate Functional Loading and Immediate Non-Functional Loading of monocortical implants with a follow-up period of 18 months. METHODS: 50 partially edentulous cases were selected for the study. The cases were divided into two groups. In first group (Group-1), 25 implants were subjected to immediate functional loading. In second group (Group-2), 25 implants were subjected to immediate non-functional loading. The crestal bone loss, clinical stability and degree of osseointegration of these two groups were comparatively evaluated. RESULTS: The crestal bone loss in both groups was within acceptable limits. The implant stability, which is a reflection of the status of bone-to-implant interface, was comparable in both the groups at different time intervals. Although, the ISQ values in Group-2 were slightly higher than those in Group-1, the results were not statistically significant. Radiodensity indicating degree of osseointegration at different time intervals in both groups was also comparable. CONCLUSION: Both the IFL and INFL protocols can be undertaken satisfactorily in rehabilitation using endosseous implants; however, the main factors for success in IFL and INFL are case selection, meticulous treatment planning and the precision of technique.
BACKGROUND: Attempts to shorten the overall length of treatment have focused on immediate loading, subsequent to implant placement. Prosthetic rehabilitation immediately after implant placement can be either functional or non-functional in nature. There is paucity of literature on the comparative evaluation of immediate functional and immediate non-functional loading of implants. This in-vivo study was undertaken to comparatively evaluate Immediate Functional Loading and Immediate Non-Functional Loading of monocortical implants with a follow-up period of 18 months. METHODS: 50 partially edentulous cases were selected for the study. The cases were divided into two groups. In first group (Group-1), 25 implants were subjected to immediate functional loading. In second group (Group-2), 25 implants were subjected to immediate non-functional loading. The crestal bone loss, clinical stability and degree of osseointegration of these two groups were comparatively evaluated. RESULTS: The crestal bone loss in both groups was within acceptable limits. The implant stability, which is a reflection of the status of bone-to-implant interface, was comparable in both the groups at different time intervals. Although, the ISQ values in Group-2 were slightly higher than those in Group-1, the results were not statistically significant. Radiodensity indicating degree of osseointegration at different time intervals in both groups was also comparable. CONCLUSION: Both the IFL and INFL protocols can be undertaken satisfactorily in rehabilitation using endosseous implants; however, the main factors for success in IFL and INFL are case selection, meticulous treatment planning and the precision of technique.
Authors: Emeka Nkenke; Bernhard Lehner; Konstanze Weinzierl; Ulf Thams; Jörg Neugebauer; Helmut Steveling; Martin Radespiel-Tröger; Friedrich Wilhelm Neukam Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Antonio Rocci; Massimiliano Martignoni; Patricia Miranda Burgos; Jan Gottlow; Lars Sennerby Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2003 Impact factor: 3.932