A radiographic and clinical comparison of immediate vs. early loading (4 weeks) of implants with a new thermo-chemically treated surface: a randomized clinical trial

Background: Implant dentistry has evolved over time, resulting in better treatment outcomes for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this trial was to test whether the immediate loading of implants with a platform-switching design influences the marginal bone level, compared to four-week loading...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Authors: Albertini, Matteo, Herrero-Climent, Federico, Díaz-Castro, Carmen María, Nart Molina, José, Fernández-Palacín, Ana, Ríos-Santos, José-Vicente, Herrero-Climent, Mariano
Format: article
Publication Date:2021
Country:España
Institution:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
Repository:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
OAI Identifier:oai:recercat.cat:20.500.12328/2436
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/2436
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031223
Access Level:Open access
Keyword:Implants dentals
Osteointegració
Odontologia
Implantes dentales
Huesos -- Implantes
Odontología
Dental implants
Osteointegration
Dentistry
61
616.3
Description
Summary:Background: Implant dentistry has evolved over time, resulting in better treatment outcomes for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this trial was to test whether the immediate loading of implants with a platform-switching design influences the marginal bone level, compared to four-week loading, after one year of follow-up. Moreover, a comparison of clinical data regarding implant survival, implant stability, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was conducted. Methods: Klockner® VEGA® implants with a ContacTi® surface were placed in partially edentulous patients in the posterior areas. Group A received an immediately loaded prosthesis (one week) and Group B received an early-loaded prosthesis (four weeks). All abutments were placed at the time of surgery. Radiographic and clinical data were recorded. Results: Twenty-one patients were treated (35 implants). No implants were lost during the study. The final marginal bone level did not show differences between groups. The bone loss at 12 months at the implant level was 0.00 mm for both groups (median). The final implant quotient stability (ISQ) values did not differ between groups (median 73 and 70.25), nor did the other clinical parameters or PROMs. Conclusions: The results suggest that neither of the loading protocols with the implants used influenced the marginal bone level—not the osseointegration rate, clinical conditions, or PROMs.