Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Single-tooth implant placement and loading in fresh and regenerated extraction sockets. Five-year results: a case
Gregory-George K Zafiropoulos1, Giorgio Deli, Barry K Bartee
1Private practice, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Background:
Implant-supported restorations are a commonly used treatment modality. However, insufficient data are available that compare treatment outcomes of implant restorations using different protocols. Similarly, data comparing the treatment outcomes of different implant designs are limited.
Methods:
This retrospective, non-randomized study evaluates 241 single implants in 241 patients (127 males and 114 females; mean age: 49.3 years; range: 45 to 75 years). Tapered-type (TAP; n = 118) and cylindric screw-type (CYL; n = 123) implants were used. Implants were grouped into the treatment categories of immediate placement, delayed placement, immediate non-occlusal loading, and delayed loading. Clinical parameters, including clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP), were recorded at examinations at baseline (BSL) and 1 (E1), 3 (E3), and 5 years (E5) after loading with the final restoration.
Results:
Eleven implants were lost (five CYL and six TAP). CAL and PI outcomes were similar for both implant types. No significant influence of implant position was found. A CAL loss of 1.5 mm was observed during the first 3 years. The type of implant and timing of placement showed no significant influence on the survival rate, whereas the failure rate was lower for immediate non-occlusal loaded implants.
Conclusion:
The type of implant, position, and timing of placement and loading did not influence the survival rate of this treatment method.