Subscribe!
Implant Courses
Implant Cases
Ask UsImmediate vs. Delayed Loading?
« Implants for Orthodontics ? | High Quality CT Images for Dental Implant Patients »
Dr. Cal. asks:
I have just read: Immediate versus delayed functional loading of
implants in the posterior mandible - A 2-year prospective clinical
study of 12 consecutive cases (Romanos G., Nentwig G-H. Int. J. of
Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry; 2006:26:459-469).
The bottom line here is that after 2-years in the posterior mandible, there was basically no difference between the dental implants which had a 3-month osseointegration followed by restoration versus immediate loading of the dental implants! In this study, 3 dental implants were placed in the posterior mandible and splinted together. Have any of you out there done this sort of immediate load and what were your results? Do you see a difference? Any thoughts on immediate vs delayed would be appreciated.
Featured Sponsor
Free Daily Email Alert Click Here>>
Get OsseoNews.com Comments delivered daily! Click Here to subscribe.FREE Weekly Email
Keep current on the latest dental implant discussions! It's Free!
>>Click Here to Subscribe to OsseoNews.com Now!
-
Editor Picks
-
Hot Topics
-
Patient Issues
- Abutment Screw Gets Stuck: How to Prevent This?
- Crown 1mm Short of the Margin: Recommendations?
- Suture Lost Exposing the Implant: What to Do?
- Mini Implants in Anterior Mandible: Expectations of Longevity?
- Space Between Implant Fixture and Natural Teeth: How Much Is Enough?
- Bucco-Lingual Resorption Exposing the Threads on Implants: How to Manage?
- Platform Switching: Which Implants are Designed for This?
- Options for Provisional Restoration?
- Porcelain Fractures: How To Approach?
- CBCT Scanners: Understanding Low-Contrast Detectability?
Implant Courses
New!
Advanced Mini Implant Training
New!
Full Mouth Reconstruction: Do Not Be Afraid!
>>More Implant Courses
5 Responses to “ Immediate vs. Delayed Loading? ”
Would not base any thoughts from that study with such a small sample size. More and more information is coming out that immediate loading has about the same success rate as the traditional route. However, no great consensus on when immediate loading should take place ? For example, immediate load an implant that is stable at only 5 Ncm ? Load at 20Ncm of initial stability ? Temporary completely out of occlusion and all excursional interferences or load in light axial occlusion only? Osseointegration has similar properties to healing of fractures. Movement leads to non-union and fibrous unions. So unless I can be sure movement is eliminated or very minimal, I don’t immediately load.
I have good success with immediate “load” in the anterior and selected esthetically demanding premolar sites. The protocol is if the implant has primary fixation of greater than 30-35Ncm then the implant can be immediately temporized. The temp is out of occlusion and no lateral or protrusive contact. The patient is on a modified soft diet until the osseointegration is complete (6 months in maxilla and grafted bone, 4 months in mandible). I personaly do not feel comfortable temporizing 1-3 posterior units because it is hard to control the load. Moreover, the implants tend to be in a straight line so there is no cross stabilization. Patients will inevitably bite on the temporary and the posterior mandible experiences greater force compared to anterior sites. If however there is cross arch stabilization with 6 implants for example, I feel comfortable loading the case because of the splinting effect and the even distribution of the masticatory forces. I think that this is a safe protocol and I realize that there is research that supports immediate loading even in the posterior mandible and maxilla.
Somborac published a paper in the October 2002 issue of ORAL HEALTH titled “Implants For Overdenture Retention; Immediate Insertion Treatment Compared to Delayed Insertion Treatment”. 62 patients were treated for overdenture retention with a total of 186 implants and followed from March of 1996 to March of 2002. The survival experiences of the two groups were compared with the Kaplan-Maier method. The survival of the implants in the Delayed Group was 94.8% versus a 98.9% survival of the Immediate Group. (Chi-square = 1.2; p = 0.27).
Dr.TENAX
What do you conclude from this?
what is the point you are getting at Dr Tenax?
Leave a Comment
Note: Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, and promotional comments. Outside links are not permitted in comments. Though we require an email to route questionable comments to our editors, we will NEVER publish your email or use it for any other purpose. Thank you for your understanding.
Note: At times your comment may not appear on the website immediately, because it has been sent to our editors for approval. Once approved, we will publish the comment. There is NO need to resubmit your comment, if it does not appear on the website immediately.