L Tettamanti1, C Andrisani2, M Andreasi Bassi3, R Vinci4, J Silvestre-Rangil5, A Tagliabue1. 1. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 2. Private Practice in Matera, Matera, Italy. 3. Private Practice in Rome, Rome, Italy. 4. Oral Surgery, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Estomatology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Modern dentistry have witnessed, a rapid and continuing evolution. Concerning the implant-rehabilitation protocols, they have been redefined in order to satisfy patient's increasing expectations in terms of comfort, aesthetic and shorter treatment period. The purpose of this review is to explore the concept of implant immediate loading and the indications for clinical practice. All the critical aspects that could influence the outcomes of this treatment will also be considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three protocols for implant load timing have been classified: immediate loading implants (ILI); early loading implants (ELI); and conventional loading implants (CLI). Two subclassifications point out the different loading modality: 1) Occlusal loading or Non-Occlusal loading, 2) Direct loading or Progressive loading. Micromovements have been considered, since the start of implant dentistry, one of the main risk for the success of osseointegration. The determinant and most accessible parameter to assess the primary stability is the implant insertion torque value. To achieve the necessary torque value to perform immediate loading, it is therefore important to evaluate the bone density at the implant site. Computerized tomography (CT) has been regarded as the best radiographic method to evaluate the residual bone. RESULTS: The clinical success of this technique is highly dependent on many factors: patient selection, bone quality and quantity, implant number and design, implant primary stability, occlusal loading and clinician's surgical ability. Among these, implant primary stability is undoubtedly the most important. CONCLUSION: Studies on ILI show that successful outcome can be expected, if the previous criteria are fulfilled. It seems that ILI demonstrate a greater risk for implant failure when compared to CLI, although the survival rates were high for both the procedures. The use of different surgical procedures, type of prostheses, loading times and have very different study designs. This lack of homogeneity limits the relevance of the conclusions that can be drawn.
PURPOSE: Modern dentistry have witnessed, a rapid and continuing evolution. Concerning the implant-rehabilitation protocols, they have been redefined in order to satisfy patient's increasing expectations in terms of comfort, aesthetic and shorter treatment period. The purpose of this review is to explore the concept of implant immediate loading and the indications for clinical practice. All the critical aspects that could influence the outcomes of this treatment will also be considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three protocols for implant load timing have been classified: immediate loading implants (ILI); early loading implants (ELI); and conventional loading implants (CLI). Two subclassifications point out the different loading modality: 1) Occlusal loading or Non-Occlusal loading, 2) Direct loading or Progressive loading. Micromovements have been considered, since the start of implant dentistry, one of the main risk for the success of osseointegration. The determinant and most accessible parameter to assess the primary stability is the implant insertion torque value. To achieve the necessary torque value to perform immediate loading, it is therefore important to evaluate the bone density at the implant site. Computerized tomography (CT) has been regarded as the best radiographic method to evaluate the residual bone. RESULTS: The clinical success of this technique is highly dependent on many factors: patient selection, bone quality and quantity, implant number and design, implant primary stability, occlusal loading and clinician's surgical ability. Among these, implant primary stability is undoubtedly the most important. CONCLUSION: Studies on ILI show that successful outcome can be expected, if the previous criteria are fulfilled. It seems that ILI demonstrate a greater risk for implant failure when compared to CLI, although the survival rates were high for both the procedures. The use of different surgical procedures, type of prostheses, loading times and have very different study designs. This lack of homogeneity limits the relevance of the conclusions that can be drawn.
Authors: A Pocaterra; S Caruso; S Bernardi; L Scagnoli; M A Continenza; R Gatto Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Francesco Grecchi; Ilaria Zollino; Valentina Candotto; Francesco Gallo; Giuseppe Rubino; Sara Giglio; Raffaella Bianco; Francesco Carinci Journal: Dent Res J (Isfahan) Date: 2012-12
Authors: Giovanni Falisi; Carlo Di Paolo; Claudio Rastelli; Carlo Franceschini; Sofia Rastelli; Roberto Gatto; Gianluca Botticelli Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-02-06
Authors: Helena Francisco; Gary Finelle; Fabien Bornert; Rebecca Sandgren; Valentin Herber; Nils Warfving; Benjamin E Pippenger Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: João Paulo do Vale Souza; Clóvis Lamartine de Moraes Melo Neto; Lucas Tavares Piacenza; Emily Vivianne Freitas da Silva; André Luiz de Melo Moreno; Paulo Augusto Penitente; Juliana Lujan Brunetto; Daniela Micheline Dos Santos; Marcelo Coelho Goiato Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2021-07-07