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

Area of Science:

• Dental Implantology
• Biomaterials Science
• Periodontology

Background:

• Dental implant loading protocols and surface treatments (SLA, SLActive) influence treatment success.
• Understanding the comparative efficacy of immediate/early versus delayed loading is crucial for clinical decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing immediate/early versus delayed loading protocols for dental implants.
• To evaluate clinical outcomes such as peri-implant bone levels, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and implant survival rates.

Main Methods:

• Searched multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane) for relevant studies.
• Included RCTs and prospective cohort studies with at least six months follow-up.
• Assessed study quality using Cochrane risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Main Results:

• Nineteen studies (7 RCTs, 12 observational) were included, involving various implant surfaces and loading protocols.
• No significant differences in implant loss or clinical parameters were found between immediate/early and delayed loading.
• High implant survival rates were reported: 95% for SLA and 97% for SLActive implants.

Conclusions:

• While included studies show positive findings, the scarcity of RCTs for SLActive implants limits definitive conclusions.
• Study heterogeneity and lack of pooled data necessitate caution when interpreting comparative findings.
• Further high-quality research is needed to fully elucidate the long-term outcomes of different loading protocols and implant surfaces.