Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To evaluate early versus conventional loading in immediate implants for molars. This study aims to answer the following PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) question: In patients over 18&#xa0;years of age, does early loading of immediately placed implants in molar areas result in a similar implant survival rate and marginal bone loss as conventional loading?</p> Methods <p>Twenty-seven patients (15 women and 12 men) received a total of 30 implants immediately after molar extraction. The surgical treatment protocol entailed atraumatic tooth extraction without flap elevation. Non-invasive quantitative analyses were used to assess implant stability. After an uneventful healing period, the 30 implants were restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia prosthesis, half of which after 6&#xa0;weeks (G1) and the other half after 3&#xa0;months (G2).</p> Results <p>Regarding the survival rate, the Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test showed that there was no statistically significant difference between both groups (<i>p</i> = 1). Implant stability quotient at the prosthetic phase of both groups (6&#xa0;weeks in G1 and 3&#xa0;months in G2) revealed no statistically significant difference (G1 RFA74.4 (SD 5.54) − DCA 79.07 (SD 5.75))/G2 RFA 73.67 (SD 5.7), − DCA78.93 (SD 4.48).</p> Conclusions <p>Early loading of immediately placed implants in molar sites is considered a predictable treatment modality provided that ideal implant position and adequate insertion torque are achieved.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Early versus conventional loading for fully guided immediate implant placement in molar sites: a randomized controlled clinical study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月20日

查看全文
  • Kirollos H. Botros,
  • Doaa Adel-Khattab,
  • Abdelrahman K. Eldabe,
  • Hala A. Abuel Ela

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate early versus conventional loading in immediate implants for molars. This study aims to answer the following PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) question: In patients over 18 years of age, does early loading of immediately placed implants in molar areas result in a similar implant survival rate and marginal bone loss as conventional loading?

Methods

Twenty-seven patients (15 women and 12 men) received a total of 30 implants immediately after molar extraction. The surgical treatment protocol entailed atraumatic tooth extraction without flap elevation. Non-invasive quantitative analyses were used to assess implant stability. After an uneventful healing period, the 30 implants were restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia prosthesis, half of which after 6 weeks (G1) and the other half after 3 months (G2).

Results

Regarding the survival rate, the Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test showed that there was no statistically significant difference between both groups (p = 1). Implant stability quotient at the prosthetic phase of both groups (6 weeks in G1 and 3 months in G2) revealed no statistically significant difference (G1 RFA74.4 (SD 5.54) − DCA 79.07 (SD 5.75))/G2 RFA 73.67 (SD 5.7), − DCA78.93 (SD 4.48).

Conclusions

Early loading of immediately placed implants in molar sites is considered a predictable treatment modality provided that ideal implant position and adequate insertion torque are achieved.