LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 25 , Issue 6
November/December 2010

Pages 11951202


Delayed Function of Dental Implants: A 1- to 7-year Follow-up Study of 222 Implants

Derk Siebers, Dr Med Dent, MSc/Peter Gehrke, Dr Med Dent/Henning Schliephake, Prof, Dr Med, Dr Med Dent


PMID: 21197498

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare implant-supported restorations placed and loaded immediately or with a delay in a longitudinal case control study. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six patients with 222 implants were enrolled in this study. One hundred eleven implants (45 patients) were submitted to immediate functional or nonfunctional loading. These were compared to 111 implants (51 patients) that received delayed loading after submerged healing. The mean observation time was 40.3 months (3.36 years). Implant success was determined, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters and esthetic outcomes for anterior restorations were evaluated. The implants were divided into four groups according to their treatment protocol: immediate (I) or delayed (D) implant placement (P) or function (F), ie: group 1 = IF+IP, group 2 = IF+DP, group 3 = DF+IP, and group 4 = DF+DP. Results: Five implants were lost during healing, giving an overall success rate of 97.7%. Implants with delayed function showed significantly better results (100.0%) than implants that were immediately loaded (95.5%). Four of the five lost implants had been placed immediately postextraction (success rate for delayed implant placement, 99.4%, versus 93.1% for immediate implant placement). Regarding the four treatment protocols, group 1 showed a success rate of 91.3%; group 2 achieved 98.5%; and both delayed function groups showed 100% success. No statistically significant difference was seen between the four groups. Esthetically significant advantages were seen for the implants placed into immediate function. Probing depths and bleeding on probing were significantly lower in the group of implants placed into immediate function. Conclusions: Implants that are loaded immediately can achieve good outcomes. However, the risk of implant loss appears to be increased in cases where immediate function is combined with immediate implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:11951202

Key words: dental implants, esthetics, immediate functional loading, immediate nonfunctional loading, immediate restoration, risk accumulation


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help