Sijia Zhang1, Shuyan Wang2, Yingliang Song3. 1. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Department of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Shan Xi, Xi'an 710032, PR China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Department of Preventive Dentistry, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Shan Xi, Xi'an 710032, PR China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Department of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Shan Xi, Xi'an 710032, PR China. Electronic address: jinglijinglijjj@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was to further confirm the no inferiority of immediate loading in clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with non-immediate loadings (early or conventional loading). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search on Pubmed and Embase was performed up to August 2015. The overall risk radios (RRs) and standard mean differences (SMDs) as well as their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for comparison. RESULTS: Total 29 RCT with 1342 implants receiving immediate loading and 1279 implants receiving non-immediate loadings were included in this meta-analysis. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between immediate and non-immediate loadings in implant failure rate based on patients (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.79 to 2.68) and implants (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.21), MBL (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.17), and ISQ (SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.01). Meanwhile, immediate loading showed significantly less MBL change than non-immediate loading. In addition, subgroup analyses showed that the immediate loading indicated slightly higher implant failure rate and lower ISQ than conventional loading. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall analysis confirmed no inferiority of immediate loading compared with non-immediate loadings, the technique still need to be explored for improving implant success and stability during immediate loading based on the results in subgroup analyses.
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was to further confirm the no inferiority of immediate loading in clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with non-immediate loadings (early or conventional loading). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search on Pubmed and Embase was performed up to August 2015. The overall risk radios (RRs) and standard mean differences (SMDs) as well as their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for comparison. RESULTS: Total 29 RCT with 1342 implants receiving immediate loading and 1279 implants receiving non-immediate loadings were included in this meta-analysis. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between immediate and non-immediate loadings in implant failure rate based on patients (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.79 to 2.68) and implants (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.21), MBL (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.17), and ISQ (SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.01). Meanwhile, immediate loading showed significantly less MBL change than non-immediate loading. In addition, subgroup analyses showed that the immediate loading indicated slightly higher implant failure rate and lower ISQ than conventional loading. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall analysis confirmed no inferiority of immediate loading compared with non-immediate loadings, the technique still need to be explored for improving implant success and stability during immediate loading based on the results in subgroup analyses.