Immediate, early (6 weeks) and delayed loading (3 months) of single, partial and full fixed implant supported prostheses: 1-year post-loading data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Q1 Dentistry European Journal of Oral Implantology Pub Date : 2018-01-01
Miltiadis Mitsias, Konstantinos Siormpas, Valeria Pistilli, Anna Trullenque-Eriksson, Marco Esposito
{"title":"Immediate, early (6 weeks) and delayed loading (3 months) of single, partial and full fixed implant supported prostheses: 1-year post-loading data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Miltiadis Mitsias,&nbsp;Konstantinos Siormpas,&nbsp;Valeria Pistilli,&nbsp;Anna Trullenque-Eriksson,&nbsp;Marco Esposito","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical outcome of single, partial and complete fixed implant supported prostheses immediately loaded (within 48 h), early loaded at 6 weeks, and conventionally loaded at 3 months (delayed loading).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 54 patients (18 requiring single implants, 18 partial fixed prostheses, and 18 total fixed cross-arch prostheses) were randomised in equal numbers at 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 failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two conventionally loaded patients rehabilitated with cross-arch fixed total prostheses dropped-out up to 1 year post-loading. No implant or prosthesis failed and three complications occurred, one in each loading group. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was 0.19 ± 0.44 mm at immediately loaded implants, 0.18 ± 0.66 mm at early loaded implants and 0.25 ± 0.28 mm at conventional loaded implants. There were no statistically significant differences in complications (P = 1.000) and bone loss (P = 0.806) between the three loading strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All loading strategies were highly successful and no differences could be observed for implant survival and complications when loading implants immediately, early or conventionally.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 1","pages":"63-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of single, partial and complete fixed implant supported prostheses immediately loaded (within 48 h), early loaded at 6 weeks, and conventionally loaded at 3 months (delayed loading).

Materials and methods: A total of 54 patients (18 requiring single implants, 18 partial fixed prostheses, and 18 total fixed cross-arch prostheses) were randomised in equal numbers at 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 failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone levels.

Results: Two conventionally loaded patients rehabilitated with cross-arch fixed total prostheses dropped-out up to 1 year post-loading. No implant or prosthesis failed and three complications occurred, one in each loading group. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was 0.19 ± 0.44 mm at immediately loaded implants, 0.18 ± 0.66 mm at early loaded implants and 0.25 ± 0.28 mm at conventional loaded implants. There were no statistically significant differences in complications (P = 1.000) and bone loss (P = 0.806) between the three loading strategies.

Conclusions: All loading strategies were highly successful and no differences could be observed for implant survival and complications when loading implants immediately, early or conventionally.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
即刻、早期(6周)和延迟加载单个、部分和全部固定种植支撑假体(3个月):加载后1年的多中心随机对照试验数据。
目的:比较单个、部分和全部固定种植体支持的假体立即加载(48小时内)、6周早期加载和3个月常规加载(延迟加载)的临床结果。材料和方法:共有54例患者(18例需要单种植体,18例部分固定假体,18例完全固定交叉弓假体)在两家私人诊所随机分为立即加载(18例),早期加载(18例)和常规加载(18例),按照平行组设计,三臂。为了立即或早期加载,植入物必须以超过40 Ncm的扭矩插入。植入物最初装载临时假体,4个月后更换为最终假体。结果测量假体和种植体失败、并发症和种植体周围边缘骨水平。结果:2例常规负荷患者经交叉弓固定全假体修复后,在负荷后1年内脱落。无种植体或假体失败,发生3例并发症,每组1例。即刻加载组种植体周围边缘骨损失为0.19±0.44 mm,早期加载组为0.18±0.66 mm,常规加载组为0.25±0.28 mm。三种加载方式在并发症(P = 1.000)和骨质流失(P = 0.806)方面差异无统计学意义。结论:所有的加载策略都是非常成功的,即刻、早期或常规加载种植体在种植体存活和并发症方面没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Oral Implantology
European Journal of Oral Implantology DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.35
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Immediate loading of fixed prostheses in fully edentulous jaws - 1-year follow-up from a single-cohort retrospective study. Research in focus. Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial. Research in focus. Immediate, early (6 weeks) and delayed loading (3 months) of single, partial and full fixed implant supported prostheses: 1-year post-loading data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1