Immediate loading for implant restoration compared with early or conventional loading: A meta-analysis

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.

Keywords: Conventional loading; Early loading; Immediate loading; Implant placement; Meta-analysis.