Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from...

This systematic review aimed at answering the following PICO question: In patients receiving immediate (Type 1) implant placement, how does immediate compare to early or conventional loading in terms of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)?

Following search strategy development, the OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were search for the relevant literature. All levels of evidence including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series of at least five patients were considered for possible inclusion. An additional manual search was performed by screening the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews published up to May 2017. The intervention considered was the placement of immediate implant. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers.

The search yielded a list of 1,102 references, of which nine were included in this systematic review. The limited number of studies included and the heterogeneity of the data identified prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Three studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial, allowed the extraction of comparative data specific to the aim of the present systematic review. The remaining studies allowed only data extraction for one single treatment modality and were viewed as single cohort studies. Overall, irrespective of the PROMs chosen, patients' satisfaction was overall high with little difference between the two loading protocols. Moreover, studies indicated a positive impact on oral health-related quality of life following immediate implant placement and loading.

Within the limitations of the present systematic review, immediate implant placement and loading in single tooth edentulous space seems to be a well-accepted treatment modality from the patients' perspective and is worthy of consideration in clinical practice. However, the paucity of comparative data limits any definitive conclusions as to which loading protocol; immediate or early/conventional, should be given preference based on PROMs.