Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The effectiveness of different attachment systems maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures.

Evidence-based dentistry·2019
Same author

Short implants had lower survival rates in posterior jaws compared to standard implants.

Evidence-based dentistry·2016
Same author

Platform switching of implants may decrease bone loss.

Evidence-based dentistry·2015
Same author

The economic costs and benefits of dental education: an empirical analysis.

Journal of dental education·2014
Same author

Review found little difference between sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) dental implants and modified surface (SLActive) implants.

Evidence-based dentistry·2014
Same author

Dental student indebtedness: Where did it come from and where will it lead?

The Journal of the American College of Dentists·2014

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 4, 2026

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
07:09

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint

Published on: March 7, 2014

12.5K

Different loading times for dental implants - no clinically important differences?

Gary L Stafford1

  • 1Department of General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

Evidence-Based Dentistry
|December 21, 2013
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This review found no significant difference in dental implant success rates or bone loss based on when implants are loaded. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are recommended for definitive conclusions on implant loading protocols.

More Related Videos

Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement
05:42

Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement

Published on: September 13, 2022

4.1K
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
11:51

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

Published on: February 10, 2014

14.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 4, 2026

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
07:09

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint

Published on: March 7, 2014

12.5K
Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement
05:42

Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement

Published on: September 13, 2022

4.1K
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
11:51

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

Published on: February 10, 2014

14.8K

Area of Science:

  • Dental Implantology
  • Biomaterials Science
  • Prosthodontics

Background:

  • Dental implant loading protocols vary, influencing treatment outcomes.
  • Understanding the optimal timing for implant loading is crucial for clinical success.
  • Previous studies have yielded mixed results regarding the impact of loading time on implant survival and bone levels.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically evaluate the impact of different dental implant loading protocols on prosthesis and implant failures.
  • To assess changes in marginal bone levels associated with various implant loading times.
  • To synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to guide clinical practice.

Main Methods:

  • A comprehensive search of multiple databases (Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase) was conducted.
  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different loading protocols (immediate, early, conventional) for osseointegrated dental implants were included.
  • Data on prosthesis/implant failures and marginal bone loss were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect models.

Main Results:

  • Twenty-six trials with 1217 participants and 2120 implants were analyzed. The overall implant failure rate was low (2.5%).
  • No significant difference in prosthesis or implant failure was found when comparing immediate versus conventional loading.
  • A small, potentially not clinically significant, reduction in bone loss favored immediate loading, but evidence for early loading and other protocols was insufficient.

Conclusions:

  • Current evidence does not convincingly demonstrate a clinically significant difference in implant outcomes based on loading time.
  • More well-designed randomized controlled trials adhering to CONSORT guidelines are necessary to establish definitive conclusions.
  • Optimal timing for dental implant loading remains an area requiring further rigorous investigation.