Early and immediately restored and loaded dental implants for single-tooth and partial-arch applications

The objective of this consensus committee report was to review the available literature published predominantly in refereed journals to summarize findings, data, and conclusions as they related to reduced healing times and protocols for single-tooth and partial-arch clinical situations. Early loading of dental implants has been defined as restoration of implants in or out of occlusion at least 48 hours after implant placement, but at a shorter time interval than conventional healing. Immediate loading or restoration has been defined as attachment of a restoration in or out of direct occlusal function within 48 hours of surgical placement.

Six articles addressing early loading, with a mixture of single-tooth and partial-arch clinical conditions and including some controlled cohort studies, were reviewed. Immediate loading or restoration of dental implants in single-tooth and partial-arch applications, was extensively reviewed. An attempt was made to isolate and categorize similar case types to discern trends and relevant factors. Variables that were considered included single- or multiple-tooth conditions, immediate or delayed placement in extraction sockets, effect of implant surface and geometry, bone quality, implant stability, surgical technique, occlusal design, effect of cigarette smoking, and stability of results.

Combined data from 6 early loading studies on single-tooth and partial-arch applications revealed 1,046 implants with a survival rate of 98.2%. Long-term data for most of the early loading studies were not yet available. Most of the publications on immediate loading or restoration of dental implants were written as case series rather than scientific studies.

In general, most publications indicated that with attention to appropriate factors, implant survival with immediate restoration was comparable to the results with conventional and early loading protocols. It should be recognized that, with few exceptions, these conclusions may be misleading statistical phenomena of the authors, as most publications were written by exceptionally experienced, highly skilled practitioners working under tightly controlled clinical conditions on a relatively small, statistically inconclusive number of implants and patients.