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.

Miltiadis Mitsias, Konstantinos D. Siormpas, Valeria Pistilli, Anna Trullenque-Eriksson, M. 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, Konstantinos D. Siormpas, Valeria Pistilli, Anna Trullenque-Eriksson, M. Esposito","doi":"10.36130/ctd.01.2019.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nTo 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).\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nA 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.\n\n\nRESULTS\nTwo 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.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAll loading strategies were highly successful and no differences could be observed for implant survival and complications when loading implants immediately, early or conventionally.","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"3 6","pages":"63-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36130/ctd.01.2019.04","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: 10

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.
查看原文
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。
目的比较即刻加载(48小时内)、6周早期加载的单个、部分和完全固定植入物支持的假体的临床结果,材料和方法在两个私人诊所将54名患者(18名需要单植入物,18名部分固定假体,18名全固定交叉弓假体)随机分为即时加载(18名患者)、早期加载(18例患者)、,以及根据具有三个臂的平行组设计的常规装载(18名患者)。为了立即或尽早加载,植入物必须以超过40Ncm的扭矩插入。植入物最初装载临时假体,4个月后用最终假体替换。结果指标包括假体和植入物的失败、并发症和植入物周围的边缘骨水平。结果两名常规负荷的患者在负荷后1年内用交叉弓固定的全人工假体进行康复。没有植入物或假体失败,出现三种并发症,每组一种。即刻加载植入物的种植体周围边缘骨损失为0.19±0.44 mm,早期加载植入物为0.18±0.66 mm,常规加载植入物则为0.25±0.28 mm。三种负荷策略在并发症(P=1.000)和骨丢失(P=0.806)方面没有统计学上的显著差异。结论所有加载策略都非常成功,当立即、早期或常规加载植入物时,植入物的存活率和并发症没有差异。
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