JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden 1 2 3
Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis
4 5
6 7 8 9
Q1
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic a,*, Tomas Albrektsson b, Ann Wennerberg c a
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, Malmo¨, Sweden Go¨teborg University, Go¨teborg, Sweden c Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, Malmo¨, Sweden b
article info
abstract
Article history:
Objectives: The purpose of the present review was to test the null hypothesis of no difference
Received 20 March 2014
in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients
Received in revised form
being rehabilitated using dental implants with immediate nonfunctional loading (INFL)
19 June 2014
compared to immediate functional loading (IFL), against the alternative hypothesis of a
Accepted 24 June 2014
difference.
Available online xxx
Methods: An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not.
Keywords:
The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in
Dental implants
millimeters.
Immediate loading
Results: 1059 studies were identified and 11 studies were included, of which 7 were of high
Nonfunctional loading
risk of bias, whereas four studies were of low risk of bias. The results showed that the
Functional loading
procedure used (nonfunctional vs. functional) did not significantly affect the implant failure
Implant failure rate
rates (P = 0.70), with a RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.44–1.75). The wide CI demonstrates uncertainty
Marginal bone loss
about the effect size. The analysis of postoperative infection was not possible due to lack of
Meta-analysis
data. No apparent significant effects of non-occlusal loading on the marginal bone loss (MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.04–0.06; P = 0.74) were observed. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the differences in occlusal loading between INFL and IFL might not affect the survival of these dental implants and that there is no apparent significant effect on the marginal bone loss. Clinical Significance: There has been a controversy concerning whether dental implants should be subjected to immediate functional or nonfunctional loading. As the philosophies of treatment may alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment. # 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
12 10 11 13 14 * Corresponding author. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, Carl Gustafs va¨g 34, SE-205 06, Malmo¨, Sweden. Tel.: +46 725 541 545; fax: +46 40 6658503. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (B.R. Chrcanovic). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010 0300-5712/# 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
JJOD 2316 1–8
2
15
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
1.
Introduction
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
The desire for fewer surgical interventions and shorter implant treatment times has led to the development of revised placement and loading protocols. A healing period of 4–6 months was initially proposed to ensure osseointegration of endosseous dental implants.1 With the improvements in oral implantology resulting in improved prognosis and outcomes, the traditional protocol for implant dentistry has been constantly reevaluated. Recent steps include reduction of the treatment time through immediate placement of implants into fresh extraction sockets2 and by loading the implants immediately.3 Immediate loading protocols have since been extensively discussed in the literature and found to be a viable treatment approach in selected cases.3 Two types of immediate loading have been described in the literature. One is the immediate functional loading (IFL), or immediate occlusal loading, which refers to the use of a temporary or definitive prosthesis seated the same day as the surgery in occlusal contact with the opposing arch.4 An alternative approach consists modifying the immediate temporary restoration to avoid occlusal contacts in centric and lateral excursions, in order to reduce the early risks of mechanical overload caused by functional or parafunctional forces, the immediate nonfunctional loading (INFL), or immediate non-occlusal loading.5 Thus, the modified restoration would still be involved in the masticatory process, but the mechanical loading stress is reduced.6 Theoretically, it has been suggested that IFL could be associated with an increased rate of implant failure. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survival rate of dental implants submitted to IFL and INFL protocols, in order to test the hypothesis that the immediate full occlusal load would compromise or jeopardize the osseointegration process. This study presents a more detailed analysis of the influence of IFL and INFL protocols on the implant failure rates, previously assessed in a systematic review addressing the reasons for failures of oral implants.7
52
2.
53 54
This study followed the PRISMA Statement guidelines.8 A review protocol does not exist.
55
2.1.
56 57 58 59 60
The purpose of the present review was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated by dental implants with INFL compared to IFL, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
61
2.2.
62 63 64 65
An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014 in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials
Materials and methods
Objective
Search strategies
Register. The following terms were used in the search strategy on PubMed: {Subject AND Adjective} {Subject: (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant survival OR dental implant success [text words]) AND Adjective: (immediate occlusal loading OR immediate nonocclusal loading OR immediate functional loading OR immediate nonfunctional loading [text words])} The following terms were used in the search strategy on Web of Science: {Subject AND Adjective} {Subject: (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant survival OR dental implant success [title]) AND Adjective: (immediate occlusal loading OR immediate nonocclusal loading OR immediate functional loading OR immediate nonfunctional loading [title])} The following terms were used in the search strategy on the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register: (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant survival OR dental implant success AND (immediate occlusal loading OR immediate non-occlusal loading OR immediate functional loading OR immediate nonfunctional loading))
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
A manual search of dental implant-related journals, including British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, European Journal of Oral Implantology, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Journal of Periodontology, and Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology, was also performed. The reference list of the identified studies and the relevant reviews on the subject were also scanned for possible additional studies. Moreover, online databases providing information about clinical trials in progress were checked www.centerwatch.com/clinicaltrials; (clinicaltrials.gov; www.clinicalconnection.com).
86 87 88 89 90 91 93 92 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
2.3.
113
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not, comparing implant failure rates in any group of patients receiving dental implants with non-occlusal immediate loading compared to occlusal immediate loading. For this review, implant failure represents the complete loss of the implant. The exclusion criteria were case reports, technical reports, animal studies, in vitro studies, and reviews papers.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
122
2.4.
Study selection
123 124 125 126 127 128 129
The titles and abstracts of all reports identified through the electronic searches were read independently by the three authors. For studies appearing to meet the inclusion criteria, or for which there were insufficient data in the title and abstract to make a clear decision, the full report was obtained. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the authors.
130
2.5.
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
The quality assessment was performed by using the recommended approach for assessing risk of bias in studies included in Cochrane reviews.9 The classification of the risk of bias potential for each study was based on the four following criteria: sequence generation (random selection in the population), allocation concealment (steps must be taken to secure strict implementation of the schedule of random assignments by preventing foreknowledge of the forthcoming allocations), incomplete outcome data (clear explanation of withdrawals and exclusions), and blinding (measures to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received). The incomplete outcome data will also be considered addressed when there are no withdrawals and/or exclusions. A study that met all the criteria mentioned above was classified as having a low risk of bias, whereas a study that did not meet one of these criteria was classified as having a moderate risk of bias. When two or more criteria were not met, the study was considered to have a high risk of bias.
150
2.6.
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
From the studies included in the final analysis, the following data was extracted (when available): year of publication, study design, unicenter or multicenter study, number of patients, patient’s age, follow-up, days of antibiotic prophylaxis, mouth rinse, implant healing period, failed and placed implants, postoperative infection, marginal bone loss, and implant surface modification. Contact with authors for possible missing data was performed. Implant failure and postoperative infection were the dichotomous outcomes measures evaluated. Weighted mean differences were used to construct forest plots of marginal bone loss, a continuous outcome. The statistical unit for ‘implant failure’ and ‘marginal bone loss’ was the implant, and for ‘postoperative infection’ was the patient. Whenever outcomes of interest were not clearly stated, the data were not used for analysis. The I2 statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity, with 25% corresponding to low heterogeneity, 50% to moderate and 75% to high. The inverse variance method was used for random-effects or fixed-effects model. Where statistically significant (P < .10) heterogeneity is detected, a random-effects model was used to assess the significance of treatment effects. Where no statistically significant heterogeneity was found, analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model.10 The estimates of relative effect for dichotomous outcomes were expressed in risk ratio (RR)
Quality assessment
Data extraction and meta-analysis
3
and in mean difference (MD) in millimeters for continuous outcomes, both with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Only if there were studies with similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures was meta-analysis to be attempted. In the cases where no events (or all events) were observed in both groups, the study provides no information about relative probability of the event and is automatically omitted from the meta-analysis. In such cases, the term ‘not estimable’ is shown under the RR column of the forest plot table. The software used here automatically checks for problematic zero counts and adds a fixed value of 0.5 to all cells of study results tables where the problems occur. A funnel plot (plot of effect size versus standard error) will be drawn. Asymmetry of the funnel plot may indicate publication bias and other biases related to sample size, although the asymmetry may also represent a true relationship between trial size and effect size. The data were analyzed using the statistical software Review Manager (version 5.2.8, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014).
3.
Results
3.1.
Literature search
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198
The study selection process is summarized in Fig. 1. The search strategy resulted in 1059 papers. The three reviewers independently screened the abstracts for those articles related to the focus question. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 51 full-text papers; 33 were cited in more than one search of terms. The full-text reports of the remaining 18 articles led to the exclusion of 9 articles because they did not meet the inclusion criteria: 6
Fig. 1 – Study screening process.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206
207 208 209 210 211
CCT (unicenter)
CCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
CCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
RCT (multicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
CCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
2005
2006
2006
2007
2009
2010
2010
2010
2012
2013
Degidi and Piattelli16
Degidi et al.17
Lindeboom et al.11
Machtei et al.18
Degidi et al.12
Cannizzaro et al.13
Degidi et al.6
Siebers et al.19
Margossian et al.14
Vogl et al.15
2, 4, 8, 12, 20, and 24 weeks, 1 and 2 years 1 week, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months
5 and 7 weeks, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months Mean of 38 months
4 and 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years 3, 10, and 14 days, 4/5 months, 1 year
7-10 days, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months
1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months, 1 year
12 and 36 months
1, 3, 5, 12, 18, and 24 months
1, 2, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months
Follow-up visits (or range)
5 / only before surgery
Only before surgery / 14
NM
Only before surgery (6 days for the grafted) / 14 5 / NP
3/7
7 / 21
Only before surgery / NP
5 / NM
NM
NM
Antibiotics/ mouth rinse (days)
6–8 months
4 months
6–8 months
6 months
4–5 months
4–6 months
12 months
6 months
Mean of 28 weeks
NM
NM
Fully occluding final restoration after
0/34 (G1) 0/21 (G2)
0/105 (G1) 7/104 (G2)
4/47 (G1) 1/64 (G2)f
1/50 (G1) 1/50 (G2)
2/20 (G1) 3/20 (G2)
3/132 (G1) 0/130 (G2)
1/26 (G1) 4/23 (G2)
3/25 (G1) 2/25 (G2)
0/23 (G1) 0/119 (G2)
1/135 (G1) 2/253 (G2)
2/224 (G1) 6/422 (G2)
Failed/ placed implants (n)
0 (G1) 0 (G2)
0 (G1) 6.7 (G2)
8.5 (G1) 1.6 (G2)
2 (G1) 2 (G2)
10 (G1) 15 (G2)
2.3 (G1) 0 (G2)
3.8 (G1) 17.4 (G2)
12 (G1) 8 (G2)
0 (G1) 0 (G2)
0.7 (G1) 0.8 (G2)
0.9 (G1) 1.4 (G2)
Implant failure rate (%)
NM
NM
0.083f
NM
1.0
NMd
0.2755
NM
NM
NM
NM
P value (for failure rate)
0.4 0.5 (G1) 0.4 0.4 (G2)
NM
NM
0.987 0.375 (G1) 0.947 0.323 (G2)
0.72 0.59 (G1) 0.90 0.48 (G2)
0.5 NM (G1) 0.6 NM (G2)
Mesial 0.28 0.22 (G1) 0.27 0.2 (G2) Distal 0.2 0.11 (G1) 0.19 0.15 (G2) 0.91 0.17 (G1 + G2)
1.0 NM (G1 + G2)
0.7 0.2 (G1 + G2)
NM (G1) 1.1 0.2 (G2) (n = 87)
Marginal bone loss (mean SD) (mm)
Grit-blasted and acid-etched (XiVe Plus, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) Sandblasted and acid-etched (Camlog Rootline and Screw Line, Camlog Biotechnologies, Basel, Switzerland), acid-etched (Osseotite, Biomet 3i, Palm Beach Gardens, USA), blasted with HA and calcium phosphate (Restore RBM, Lifecore Biomedical, Chaska, USA) Acid-etched (Osseotite NT, 3i Implant Innovations, Palm Beach Gardens, USA) Grit-blasted and acid-etched (XiVe, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany)
Blasted with calcium phosphate (Maestro, BioHorizons, Birmingham, USA) Zirconia sandblasted (Z-Look3, ZSystems, Oensingen, Switzerland)
Acid-etched (Osseotite TG, 3i Implant Innovations, Palm Beach Gardens, USA)
Sandblasted and etched (BioComp, BioComp Industries BV, Vught, The Netherlands)
Only in posterior mandible. Use of stereolithographic tooth-supported guides. No grafted patients
d
c
No grafted patients
No grafted patients 46 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets
Implants placed in periodontally susceptible patients. Xenograft in some patients No grafted patients Some implants placed in fresh extraction sockets Use of zirconia implants, 10 patients grafted (5 of each group), 10 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets (5 of each group) Only in posterior mandible No grafted patients
No grafted patients Implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: 97 (G1), 187 (G2) No grafted patients Some implants placed in fresh extraction sockets No grafted patients Some implants placed in fresh extraction sockets Only in maxilla (excluding molar regions) 32 implants grafted (16 from each group)
Severala
Grit-blasted and acid-etched (XiVe, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) Porous anodized surface (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare, Go¨teborg, Sweden)
Observations
Implant surface modification (brand)
There were 253 patients in the study, however, in 156 patients the implants were inserted using the traditional technique. There were 155 patients in the study, however, only in 82 of them the implants were inserted in immediate function. A P value was 0.196 when a comparison of the implant survival rate between the immediately loaded group and delayed loaded group was performed, but not between the INFL and IFL groups. e There were 76 patients in the study, however, only in 45 of them the implants were inserted in immediate function. f Unpublished information was obtained by personal communication with one of the authors. g There were 117 patients in the study, however, in 37 patients the implants were inserted using the traditional technique. NM–not mentioned; CCT–controlled clinical trial; RCT–randomized controlled trial; G1–group immediately nonfunctional loaded implants (INFL); G2–group immediately functional loaded implants (IFL); NP - not performed.
b
NM
80 (117g) (40, G1; 40, G2) 33–70 (54 11.9)
22–85 (52 13)
45 (76e) (NM)
20 (11, G1; 9, G2)
35–54 (45.1 9.1)
50 (25, G1; 25, G2)
18–55 (39)
18–78 (54)
82 (155c) (63, G1; 19, G2)
40 (20, G1; 20, G2)
31–68 (55.7)
19–78 (42.3 13.1)
20 (NM)
48 (24, G1; 24; G2)
23–65 (52)
20–78 (53)
97 (253b) (63, G1; 34, G2)
29 (12, G1; 17, G2)
18–75 (NM)
151 (116, G1; 65, G2)
Patients’ age range (average) (years)
Frialit 2, IMZ, Frialoc (Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Bra˚nemark (Nobel Biocare, Go¨teborg, Sweden), Restore (Lifecore Biomedical, Chaska, USA), Maestro (Biohorizons, Birmingham, USA), 3i (Implant Innovations, West Palm Beach, USA).
CCT (unicenter)
2003
Degidi and Piattelli4
Patients (n)
4
a
Study design
Published
Authors
Table 1 – Detailed data of the included studies.
JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
212
213 214 215
JJOD 2316 1–8
5
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
207 208 209 210 211 212
articles were conducted in animals, and 3 articles compared non-occlusal vs. occlusal loading, but only in one group the loading was immediate. Additional hand-searching of the reference lists of selected studies yielded 2 additional papers. Thus, a total of 11 publications were included in the review.
213
3.2.
214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
Detailed data of the eleven included studies are listed in Table 1. Six RCTs,6,11–15 and five CCT4,16–19 were included in the meta-analysis. In two studies6,13 both patients and operators/ outcome assessors were blinded to the tested intervention, whereas in three studies12,14,15 it was unclear whether blinding was performed. Four studies11,13,15,18 had a followup of up to 1 year. All studies with available data of patients’ age included only adult patients. Eight studies4,6,12,14–17,19 did not perform grafting procedures in any of the patients. One study13 used only zirconia implants, in another study18 the implants were inserted in periodontally susceptible patients, in two studies6,15 the implants were inserted only in the posterior mandible, and in one study11 the implants were inserted only in the maxilla. Not every article provided information about the number of failed implants by group. Unpublished information concerning the number of failed implants in each group was obtained by personal communication with one of the authors in one study.19 From the eleven studies, a total of 821 dental implants received non-occlusal immediate loading, with 17 failures (2.1%), and 1231 implants received occlusal immediate loading, with 26 failures (2.1%). Eight studies4,6,11,12,14–17 did not inform whether there was a statistically significant difference or not between the techniques concerning implant failure, whereas the other three studies13,18,19 did not find statistically significant difference. There were no implant failures in two studies.15,17 Only three studies13,15,17 informed of the incidence of postoperative infection, all with no occurrences in a total of 89 patients receiving 237 implants. Nine studies provided information about the marginal bone loss.4,6,11–13,15–18
3.3.
Quality assessment
246
Each trial was assessed for risk of bias, and the scores are summarized in Table 2. Seven studies4,11,12,16–19 were judged to be at high risk of bias and four studies6,13–15 of low risk of bias.
247 248 249
3.4.
250
Meta-analysis
Description of the studies In this study, a fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the implant failure, since statistically significant heterogeneity was not found (P = 0.26; I2 = 21%). The results showed a RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.44–1.75; Fig. 2) for the INFL, suggesting that implant failures in patients receiving implants under the INFL protocol are 0.87 times likely to happen when compared to implant failures in patients receiving implants under the IFL protocol (relative risk reduction of 13% for INFL). However, the procedure used (INFL vs. IFL) did not significantly affect the implant failure rates (P = 0.70). As only three studies13,15,17 informed of the incidence of postoperative infection, and all with no events, no metaanalysis was possible for this outcome. Only four studies6,11,13,15 (245 implants) provided information about the marginal bone loss with standard deviation, necessary for the calculation of comparisons in continuous outcomes (Fig. 3). A fixed-effects model was used to evaluate this outcome, since statistically significant heterogeneity was not found (P = 0.84; I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.74) between the different techniques concerning the marginal bone loss.
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
3.5.
272
Publication bias
The funnel plot did not show asymmetry when the studies reporting the outcome ‘implant failure’ were analyzed (Fig. 4), indicating absence of publication bias.
273 274 275
4.
276
Discussion
The present study proposed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection,
Table 2 – Results of quality assessment. Authors
Degidi and Piattelli4 Degidi and Piattelli16 Degidi et al.17 Lindeboom et al.11 Machtei et al.18 Degidi et al.12 Cannizzaro et al.13 Degidi et al.6 Siebers et al.19 Margossian et al.14 Vogl et al.15 a
Published
Sequence generation (randomized?)
Allocation concealment
Incomplete outcome data addressed
Blinding
Estimated potential risk of bias
2003 2005 2006 2006 2007 2009 2010 2010 2010 2012 2013
No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Unclear Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
No No No No No Unclear Yes Yes No Yesa Yesa
High High High High High High Low Low High Low Low
Unpublished information was obtained by personal communication with one of the authors.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
277 278
JJOD 2316 1–8
6
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2 – Forest plot of comparison of INFL versus IFL for the event ‘implant failure’.
279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307
and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated with dental implants comparing INFL to IFL, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. Concerning the implant failure rates, the idea behind the concept of keeping the temporary restoration out of occlusion is to control the load on the prosthesis in order to allow undisturbed healing. The role of tongue pressure and perioral musculature may be an underestimated factor in immediately provisionalized but unloaded implants. Moreover, occlusion might not be the only determinant of implant survival.11 The results of the present meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the INFL and IFL concerning implant failures. The increase of load, applied to the prosthesis caused by the presence of the normal occlusal contact, seems to be unable to jeopardize or alter the healing process of the implant.6 Some factors may have contributed to such outcome in some studies, that include the use of a resilient acrylic resin for the fabrication of the temporary restoration, the exclusion of parafunctional bruxist patients from the study, and the splinting of the temporary prosthetic work. It has been suggested that it is not the absence of loading per se that is critical for osseointegration, but rather the absence of excessive micromotion at the interface.17 Micromotion consists of a relative movement between the implant surface and surrounding bone during functional loading and it is believed that, above a certain threshold, excessive interfacial micromotion early after the implantation interferes with local bone healing, predisposing to a fibrous tissue interface, preventing the fibrin clot from adhering to the implant surface
during healing.20 Splinting the provisional restoration might have protected the implants from micromotion.15 The small sample size in many studies6,11,13,15,17–19 may also have affected the results concerning implant failure. Even though the importance of meta-analyses is to increase sample size of individual trials to reach more precise estimates of the effects of interventions, in this particular analysis no statistically significant difference was found when comparing these two techniques concerning the implant failure rates (P = 0.70). As there is a wide CI for the RR (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.44–1.75), the uncertainty about the effect size is greater than if the CI was narrower, although there might still be enough precision to make decisions about the utility of the intervention.9 In four studies11,13,15,18 the patients were followed for a short period (1 year). Thus, only early failures could be assessed. A longer follow-up period may lead to an increase in the failure rate. Moreover, the results found in the studies differed from each other, and such discrepancies could be due to factors such as differences in the patients included in the study or the between clinicians placing and restoring the implants. Only three studies13,15,17 provided information regarding the incidence of postoperative infection, all of them with no events. Therefore, no meta-analysis was possible for this outcome. The third outcome analyzed was the marginal bone loss. Marginal bone levels might vary with load distribution patterns between natural teeth and implants, with access for hygiene instruments in splinted provisional restorations21
Fig. 3 – Forest plot of comparison of INFL versus IFL for the event ‘marginal bone loss’. Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4 – Funnel plot for the studies reporting the outcome event ‘implant failure’.
337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376
or with iatrogenic manipulation of the implant during initial healing.22 Early functional loading during the healing phase may have a positive effect on marginal bone levels. Early loading stimuli at the bone-implant interface leads to functional adaptation of the bone (remodeling) and to an improved differentiation of the bone structures, resulting in a higher marginal bone level.22,23 However, the present metaanalysis did not find a statistically significant difference (P = 0.74) between the techniques in what concerns the marginal bone loss. The reason for that may be the short postoperative follow-up period of 1 year found in three11,13,15 of the four studies with available data to produce a comparison, and/or the small sample size in all four studies.6,11,13,15 The biological differences in peri-implant tissue responses between IFL and INFL implants have been analyzed in animal models, where no differences were observed between the ultrastructural morphology of the cells at the interface of implants from both groups in the early phases of osseointegration in minipigs,24 and no statistically significant differences in the bone-to-implant contact percentages were found between groups, in a study performed in dogs.25 The present meta-analysis included non-RCT studies, which is not usually performed. Potential biases are likely to be greater for non-randomized studies compared with RCTs, so results should always be interpreted with caution when they are included in reviews and meta-analyses.9 So what was the reason to include non-randomized studies in the present meta-analysis? The issue is important because metaanalyses are frequently conducted on a limited number of RCTs.26 Shrier27 reviewed a random 1% sample of metaanalyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003 and found that 6 of 16 reviews included two studies or fewer. Furthermore, 158 of 183 analyses conducted in 7 additional studies were limited to two or fewer studies. In meta-analyses such as these, adding more information from observational studies may aid in clinical reasoning and establish a more solid foundation for causal inferences.26 In a metaanalysis, homogeneity implies a mathematical compatibility between the results of each individual trial. Narrowing the inclusion criteria increases homogeneity but also excludes
7
the results of more trials and thus risks the exclusion of significant data. One of the strengths of meta-analysis as a technique for synthesizing research findings on the effectiveness of intervention programs is that it allows those findings to be systematically compared and contrasted across studies.28 What complicates the investigation is the presence of confounding variables in the analyzed studies. The use of grafting in some studies11,13,18 is a confounding factor, as well as inserting the implants only in periodontally susceptible patients,18 in particular regions of the mouth, such as only in the posterior mandible6,15 or only in the maxilla,11 the insertion of some implants in fresh extraction sockets,4,12,13,16,17,19 the use of zirconia implants,13 and the insertion of implants from different brands and surface treatments. Titanium implants with different surface modifications show a wide range of chemical, physical properties, and surface topographies and morphologies, depending on how they are prepared and handled,29–31 while it is not clear whether, in general, one surface modification is better than the other.32 The results of the present study should be interpreted with caution considering its limitations. The presence of confounding factors may have affected the long-term outcomes, regardless of whether the implants were submitted to INFL or IFL. The impact of such variables on the implant survival rate, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss outcomes is difficult to estimate if these factors are not identified separately between the two different procedures in order to perform a meta-regression analysis. Therefore, lack of control of the confounding factors limited the potential to draw robust conclusions.
377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407
5.
408
Conclusions
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the differences in occlusal loading between INFL and IFL might not affect the survival of these dental implants. There was also no statistically significant difference between the two techniques concerning the marginal bone loss.
409 410 411 412 413 414
Acknowledgements
415
This work was supported by CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı´fico e Tecnolo´gico–Brazil. The authors would like to thank Dr. Derk Siebers, Dr. Patrice Margossian, and Dr. Marlene Stopper, who provided us some missing information about their studies.
416 417 418 419 420
references
421
1. Bra˚nemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstro¨m J, Halle´n O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Supplementum 1977;16:1–132. 2. Chrcanovic BR, Martins MD, Wennerberg A. Immediate placement of implants into infected sites: a systematic
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
422 423 424 425 426 427 428
JJOD 2316 1–8
8 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
review. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2013. doi.org/10.1111/cid.12098.. ¨ stman PO, Wennerberg A, Ekestubbe A, Albrektsson T. O Immediate Occlusal Loading of NanoTiteTM Tapered Implants: a Prospective 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2013;15:809–18. Degidi M, Piattelli A. Immediate functional and nonfunctional loading of dental implants: a 2- to 60-month follow-up study of 646 titanium implants. Journal of Periodontology 2003;74:225–41. Misch CE. Nonfunctional immediate teeth. Dentistry Today 1998;17:88–91. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A. A comparison between immediate loading and immediate restoration in cases of partial posterior mandibular edentulism: a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2010;21:682–7. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2014;41:443–76. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;151. 264-9, W64. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5. 1. 0. [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed on 03/03/2014.. Egger M, Smith GD. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context.. London: BMJ books; 2003. p. 23–42. Lindeboom JA, Frenken JW, Dubois L, Frank M, Abbink I, Kroon FH. Immediate loading versus immediate provisionalization of maxillary single-tooth replacement: A prospective randomized study with BioCom implants. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2006;64:936–42. Degidi M, Iezzi G, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Comparative analysis of immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods: a 5year follow-up of 550 dental implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2009;11:257–66. Cannizzaro G, Torchio C, Felice P, Leone M, Esposito M. Immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading of single zirconia implants. A multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology 2010;3:111–20. Margossian P, Mariani P, Stephan G, Margerit J, Jorgensen C. Immediate loading of mandibular dental implants in partially edentulous patients: a prospective randomized comparative study. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 2012;32:e51–8. Vogl S, Stopper M, Hof M, Wegscheider WA, Lorenzoni M. Immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading of implants: a randomized clinical pilot study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2013. doi.org/10.1111/cid.12157.. Degidi M, Piattelli A. Comparative analysis study of 702 dental implants subjected to immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods with a follow-up of up to 24 months. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2005;20:99–107.
17. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded titanium implants with a porous anodized surface with at least 36 months of follow-up. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2006;8:169–77. 18. Machtei EE, Frankenthal S, Blumenfeld I, Gutmacher Z, Horwitz J. Dental implants for immediate fixed restoration of partially edentulous patients: a 1-year prospective pilot clinical trial in periodontally susceptible patients. Journal of Periodontology 2007;78:1188–94. 19. Siebers D, Gehrke P, Schliephake H. Immediate versus delayed function of dental implants: a 1- to 7-year follow-up study of 222 implants. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2010;25:1195–202. 20. Glauser R, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J, Sennerby L, Portmann M, Ruhstaller P, Ha¨mmerle CH. Immediate occlusal loading of Branemark TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2003;5:47–56. 21. Payer M, Heschl A, Wimmer G, Wegscheider W, Kirmeier R, Lorenzoni M. Immediate provisional restoration of screw-type implants in the posterior mandible: results after 5 years of clinical function. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2010;21:815–21. 22. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 1998;43:192–203. 23. Brunski JB. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface. Clinical Materials 1992;10:153–201. 24. Meyer U, Joos U, Mythili J, Stamm T, Hohoff A, Fillies T, Stratmann U, Wiesmann HP. Ultrastructural characterization of the implant/bone interface of immediately loaded dental implants. Biomaterials 2004;25:1959–67. 25. Ghavanati F, Shayeg SS, Rahimi H, Sharifi D, Ghanavati F, Khalesseh N, Eslami B. The effect of loading time of osseointegration and new bone formation around dental implants. A histologic and histomorphometric study in dogs. Journal of Periodontology 2006;77:1701–7. 26. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. American Journal of Epidemiology 2007;166:1203–9. 27. Shrier I. Cochrane Reviews: new blocks on the kids. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2003;37:473–4. 28. Lipsey MW. Those confounded moderators in metaanalysis: good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2003;587:69–81. 29. Chrcanovic BR, Pedrosa AR, Martins MD. Chemical and topographic analysis of treated surfaces of five different commercial dental titanium implants. Materials Research 2012;15:372–82. 30. Chrcanovic BR, Lea˜o NLC, Martins MD. Influence of different acid etchings on the superficial characteristics of Ti sandblasted with Al2O3. Materials Research 2013;16:1006–14. 31. Chrcanovic BR, Martins MD. Study of the influence of acid etching treatments on the superficial characteristics of Ti. Materials Research 2014;17:373–80. 32. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2010;25:63–74.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden 1 2 3
Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis
4 5
6 7 8 9
Q1
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic a,*, Tomas Albrektsson b, Ann Wennerberg c a
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, Malmo¨, Sweden Go¨teborg University, Go¨teborg, Sweden c Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, Malmo¨, Sweden b
article info
abstract
Article history:
Objectives: The purpose of the present review was to test the null hypothesis of no difference
Received 20 March 2014
in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients
Received in revised form
being rehabilitated using dental implants with immediate nonfunctional loading (INFL)
19 June 2014
compared to immediate functional loading (IFL), against the alternative hypothesis of a
Accepted 24 June 2014
difference.
Available online xxx
Methods: An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not.
Keywords:
The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in
Dental implants
millimeters.
Immediate loading
Results: 1059 studies were identified and 11 studies were included, of which 7 were of high
Nonfunctional loading
risk of bias, whereas four studies were of low risk of bias. The results showed that the
Functional loading
procedure used (nonfunctional vs. functional) did not significantly affect the implant failure
Implant failure rate
rates (P = 0.70), with a RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.44–1.75). The wide CI demonstrates uncertainty
Marginal bone loss
about the effect size. The analysis of postoperative infection was not possible due to lack of
Meta-analysis
data. No apparent significant effects of non-occlusal loading on the marginal bone loss (MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.04–0.06; P = 0.74) were observed. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the differences in occlusal loading between INFL and IFL might not affect the survival of these dental implants and that there is no apparent significant effect on the marginal bone loss. Clinical Significance: There has been a controversy concerning whether dental implants should be subjected to immediate functional or nonfunctional loading. As the philosophies of treatment may alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment. # 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
12 10 11 13 14 * Corresponding author. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, Carl Gustafs va¨g 34, SE-205 06, Malmo¨, Sweden. Tel.: +46 725 541 545; fax: +46 40 6658503. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (B.R. Chrcanovic). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010 0300-5712/# 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
JJOD 2316 1–8
2
15
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
1.
Introduction
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
The desire for fewer surgical interventions and shorter implant treatment times has led to the development of revised placement and loading protocols. A healing period of 4–6 months was initially proposed to ensure osseointegration of endosseous dental implants.1 With the improvements in oral implantology resulting in improved prognosis and outcomes, the traditional protocol for implant dentistry has been constantly reevaluated. Recent steps include reduction of the treatment time through immediate placement of implants into fresh extraction sockets2 and by loading the implants immediately.3 Immediate loading protocols have since been extensively discussed in the literature and found to be a viable treatment approach in selected cases.3 Two types of immediate loading have been described in the literature. One is the immediate functional loading (IFL), or immediate occlusal loading, which refers to the use of a temporary or definitive prosthesis seated the same day as the surgery in occlusal contact with the opposing arch.4 An alternative approach consists modifying the immediate temporary restoration to avoid occlusal contacts in centric and lateral excursions, in order to reduce the early risks of mechanical overload caused by functional or parafunctional forces, the immediate nonfunctional loading (INFL), or immediate non-occlusal loading.5 Thus, the modified restoration would still be involved in the masticatory process, but the mechanical loading stress is reduced.6 Theoretically, it has been suggested that IFL could be associated with an increased rate of implant failure. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survival rate of dental implants submitted to IFL and INFL protocols, in order to test the hypothesis that the immediate full occlusal load would compromise or jeopardize the osseointegration process. This study presents a more detailed analysis of the influence of IFL and INFL protocols on the implant failure rates, previously assessed in a systematic review addressing the reasons for failures of oral implants.7
52
2.
53 54
This study followed the PRISMA Statement guidelines.8 A review protocol does not exist.
55
2.1.
56 57 58 59 60
The purpose of the present review was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated by dental implants with INFL compared to IFL, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
61
2.2.
62 63 64 65
An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014 in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials
Materials and methods
Objective
Search strategies
Register. The following terms were used in the search strategy on PubMed: {Subject AND Adjective} {Subject: (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant survival OR dental implant success [text words]) AND Adjective: (immediate occlusal loading OR immediate nonocclusal loading OR immediate functional loading OR immediate nonfunctional loading [text words])} The following terms were used in the search strategy on Web of Science: {Subject AND Adjective} {Subject: (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant survival OR dental implant success [title]) AND Adjective: (immediate occlusal loading OR immediate nonocclusal loading OR immediate functional loading OR immediate nonfunctional loading [title])} The following terms were used in the search strategy on the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register: (dental implant OR dental implant failure OR dental implant survival OR dental implant success AND (immediate occlusal loading OR immediate non-occlusal loading OR immediate functional loading OR immediate nonfunctional loading))
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
A manual search of dental implant-related journals, including British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, European Journal of Oral Implantology, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Journal of Periodontology, and Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology, was also performed. The reference list of the identified studies and the relevant reviews on the subject were also scanned for possible additional studies. Moreover, online databases providing information about clinical trials in progress were checked www.centerwatch.com/clinicaltrials; (clinicaltrials.gov; www.clinicalconnection.com).
86 87 88 89 90 91 93 92 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
2.3.
113
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not, comparing implant failure rates in any group of patients receiving dental implants with non-occlusal immediate loading compared to occlusal immediate loading. For this review, implant failure represents the complete loss of the implant. The exclusion criteria were case reports, technical reports, animal studies, in vitro studies, and reviews papers.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
122
2.4.
Study selection
123 124 125 126 127 128 129
The titles and abstracts of all reports identified through the electronic searches were read independently by the three authors. For studies appearing to meet the inclusion criteria, or for which there were insufficient data in the title and abstract to make a clear decision, the full report was obtained. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the authors.
130
2.5.
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
The quality assessment was performed by using the recommended approach for assessing risk of bias in studies included in Cochrane reviews.9 The classification of the risk of bias potential for each study was based on the four following criteria: sequence generation (random selection in the population), allocation concealment (steps must be taken to secure strict implementation of the schedule of random assignments by preventing foreknowledge of the forthcoming allocations), incomplete outcome data (clear explanation of withdrawals and exclusions), and blinding (measures to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received). The incomplete outcome data will also be considered addressed when there are no withdrawals and/or exclusions. A study that met all the criteria mentioned above was classified as having a low risk of bias, whereas a study that did not meet one of these criteria was classified as having a moderate risk of bias. When two or more criteria were not met, the study was considered to have a high risk of bias.
150
2.6.
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
From the studies included in the final analysis, the following data was extracted (when available): year of publication, study design, unicenter or multicenter study, number of patients, patient’s age, follow-up, days of antibiotic prophylaxis, mouth rinse, implant healing period, failed and placed implants, postoperative infection, marginal bone loss, and implant surface modification. Contact with authors for possible missing data was performed. Implant failure and postoperative infection were the dichotomous outcomes measures evaluated. Weighted mean differences were used to construct forest plots of marginal bone loss, a continuous outcome. The statistical unit for ‘implant failure’ and ‘marginal bone loss’ was the implant, and for ‘postoperative infection’ was the patient. Whenever outcomes of interest were not clearly stated, the data were not used for analysis. The I2 statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity, with 25% corresponding to low heterogeneity, 50% to moderate and 75% to high. The inverse variance method was used for random-effects or fixed-effects model. Where statistically significant (P < .10) heterogeneity is detected, a random-effects model was used to assess the significance of treatment effects. Where no statistically significant heterogeneity was found, analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model.10 The estimates of relative effect for dichotomous outcomes were expressed in risk ratio (RR)
Quality assessment
Data extraction and meta-analysis
3
and in mean difference (MD) in millimeters for continuous outcomes, both with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Only if there were studies with similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures was meta-analysis to be attempted. In the cases where no events (or all events) were observed in both groups, the study provides no information about relative probability of the event and is automatically omitted from the meta-analysis. In such cases, the term ‘not estimable’ is shown under the RR column of the forest plot table. The software used here automatically checks for problematic zero counts and adds a fixed value of 0.5 to all cells of study results tables where the problems occur. A funnel plot (plot of effect size versus standard error) will be drawn. Asymmetry of the funnel plot may indicate publication bias and other biases related to sample size, although the asymmetry may also represent a true relationship between trial size and effect size. The data were analyzed using the statistical software Review Manager (version 5.2.8, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014).
3.
Results
3.1.
Literature search
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198
The study selection process is summarized in Fig. 1. The search strategy resulted in 1059 papers. The three reviewers independently screened the abstracts for those articles related to the focus question. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 51 full-text papers; 33 were cited in more than one search of terms. The full-text reports of the remaining 18 articles led to the exclusion of 9 articles because they did not meet the inclusion criteria: 6
Fig. 1 – Study screening process.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206
207 208 209 210 211
CCT (unicenter)
CCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
CCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
RCT (multicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
CCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
RCT (unicenter)
2005
2006
2006
2007
2009
2010
2010
2010
2012
2013
Degidi and Piattelli16
Degidi et al.17
Lindeboom et al.11
Machtei et al.18
Degidi et al.12
Cannizzaro et al.13
Degidi et al.6
Siebers et al.19
Margossian et al.14
Vogl et al.15
2, 4, 8, 12, 20, and 24 weeks, 1 and 2 years 1 week, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months
5 and 7 weeks, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months Mean of 38 months
4 and 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years 3, 10, and 14 days, 4/5 months, 1 year
7-10 days, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months
1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months, 1 year
12 and 36 months
1, 3, 5, 12, 18, and 24 months
1, 2, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months
Follow-up visits (or range)
5 / only before surgery
Only before surgery / 14
NM
Only before surgery (6 days for the grafted) / 14 5 / NP
3/7
7 / 21
Only before surgery / NP
5 / NM
NM
NM
Antibiotics/ mouth rinse (days)
6–8 months
4 months
6–8 months
6 months
4–5 months
4–6 months
12 months
6 months
Mean of 28 weeks
NM
NM
Fully occluding final restoration after
0/34 (G1) 0/21 (G2)
0/105 (G1) 7/104 (G2)
4/47 (G1) 1/64 (G2)f
1/50 (G1) 1/50 (G2)
2/20 (G1) 3/20 (G2)
3/132 (G1) 0/130 (G2)
1/26 (G1) 4/23 (G2)
3/25 (G1) 2/25 (G2)
0/23 (G1) 0/119 (G2)
1/135 (G1) 2/253 (G2)
2/224 (G1) 6/422 (G2)
Failed/ placed implants (n)
0 (G1) 0 (G2)
0 (G1) 6.7 (G2)
8.5 (G1) 1.6 (G2)
2 (G1) 2 (G2)
10 (G1) 15 (G2)
2.3 (G1) 0 (G2)
3.8 (G1) 17.4 (G2)
12 (G1) 8 (G2)
0 (G1) 0 (G2)
0.7 (G1) 0.8 (G2)
0.9 (G1) 1.4 (G2)
Implant failure rate (%)
NM
NM
0.083f
NM
1.0
NMd
0.2755
NM
NM
NM
NM
P value (for failure rate)
0.4 0.5 (G1) 0.4 0.4 (G2)
NM
NM
0.987 0.375 (G1) 0.947 0.323 (G2)
0.72 0.59 (G1) 0.90 0.48 (G2)
0.5 NM (G1) 0.6 NM (G2)
Mesial 0.28 0.22 (G1) 0.27 0.2 (G2) Distal 0.2 0.11 (G1) 0.19 0.15 (G2) 0.91 0.17 (G1 + G2)
1.0 NM (G1 + G2)
0.7 0.2 (G1 + G2)
NM (G1) 1.1 0.2 (G2) (n = 87)
Marginal bone loss (mean SD) (mm)
Grit-blasted and acid-etched (XiVe Plus, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) Sandblasted and acid-etched (Camlog Rootline and Screw Line, Camlog Biotechnologies, Basel, Switzerland), acid-etched (Osseotite, Biomet 3i, Palm Beach Gardens, USA), blasted with HA and calcium phosphate (Restore RBM, Lifecore Biomedical, Chaska, USA) Acid-etched (Osseotite NT, 3i Implant Innovations, Palm Beach Gardens, USA) Grit-blasted and acid-etched (XiVe, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany)
Blasted with calcium phosphate (Maestro, BioHorizons, Birmingham, USA) Zirconia sandblasted (Z-Look3, ZSystems, Oensingen, Switzerland)
Acid-etched (Osseotite TG, 3i Implant Innovations, Palm Beach Gardens, USA)
Sandblasted and etched (BioComp, BioComp Industries BV, Vught, The Netherlands)
Only in posterior mandible. Use of stereolithographic tooth-supported guides. No grafted patients
d
c
No grafted patients
No grafted patients 46 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets
Implants placed in periodontally susceptible patients. Xenograft in some patients No grafted patients Some implants placed in fresh extraction sockets Use of zirconia implants, 10 patients grafted (5 of each group), 10 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets (5 of each group) Only in posterior mandible No grafted patients
No grafted patients Implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: 97 (G1), 187 (G2) No grafted patients Some implants placed in fresh extraction sockets No grafted patients Some implants placed in fresh extraction sockets Only in maxilla (excluding molar regions) 32 implants grafted (16 from each group)
Severala
Grit-blasted and acid-etched (XiVe, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) Porous anodized surface (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare, Go¨teborg, Sweden)
Observations
Implant surface modification (brand)
There were 253 patients in the study, however, in 156 patients the implants were inserted using the traditional technique. There were 155 patients in the study, however, only in 82 of them the implants were inserted in immediate function. A P value was 0.196 when a comparison of the implant survival rate between the immediately loaded group and delayed loaded group was performed, but not between the INFL and IFL groups. e There were 76 patients in the study, however, only in 45 of them the implants were inserted in immediate function. f Unpublished information was obtained by personal communication with one of the authors. g There were 117 patients in the study, however, in 37 patients the implants were inserted using the traditional technique. NM–not mentioned; CCT–controlled clinical trial; RCT–randomized controlled trial; G1–group immediately nonfunctional loaded implants (INFL); G2–group immediately functional loaded implants (IFL); NP - not performed.
b
NM
80 (117g) (40, G1; 40, G2) 33–70 (54 11.9)
22–85 (52 13)
45 (76e) (NM)
20 (11, G1; 9, G2)
35–54 (45.1 9.1)
50 (25, G1; 25, G2)
18–55 (39)
18–78 (54)
82 (155c) (63, G1; 19, G2)
40 (20, G1; 20, G2)
31–68 (55.7)
19–78 (42.3 13.1)
20 (NM)
48 (24, G1; 24; G2)
23–65 (52)
20–78 (53)
97 (253b) (63, G1; 34, G2)
29 (12, G1; 17, G2)
18–75 (NM)
151 (116, G1; 65, G2)
Patients’ age range (average) (years)
Frialit 2, IMZ, Frialoc (Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), Bra˚nemark (Nobel Biocare, Go¨teborg, Sweden), Restore (Lifecore Biomedical, Chaska, USA), Maestro (Biohorizons, Birmingham, USA), 3i (Implant Innovations, West Palm Beach, USA).
CCT (unicenter)
2003
Degidi and Piattelli4
Patients (n)
4
a
Study design
Published
Authors
Table 1 – Detailed data of the included studies.
JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
212
213 214 215
JJOD 2316 1–8
5
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
207 208 209 210 211 212
articles were conducted in animals, and 3 articles compared non-occlusal vs. occlusal loading, but only in one group the loading was immediate. Additional hand-searching of the reference lists of selected studies yielded 2 additional papers. Thus, a total of 11 publications were included in the review.
213
3.2.
214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
Detailed data of the eleven included studies are listed in Table 1. Six RCTs,6,11–15 and five CCT4,16–19 were included in the meta-analysis. In two studies6,13 both patients and operators/ outcome assessors were blinded to the tested intervention, whereas in three studies12,14,15 it was unclear whether blinding was performed. Four studies11,13,15,18 had a followup of up to 1 year. All studies with available data of patients’ age included only adult patients. Eight studies4,6,12,14–17,19 did not perform grafting procedures in any of the patients. One study13 used only zirconia implants, in another study18 the implants were inserted in periodontally susceptible patients, in two studies6,15 the implants were inserted only in the posterior mandible, and in one study11 the implants were inserted only in the maxilla. Not every article provided information about the number of failed implants by group. Unpublished information concerning the number of failed implants in each group was obtained by personal communication with one of the authors in one study.19 From the eleven studies, a total of 821 dental implants received non-occlusal immediate loading, with 17 failures (2.1%), and 1231 implants received occlusal immediate loading, with 26 failures (2.1%). Eight studies4,6,11,12,14–17 did not inform whether there was a statistically significant difference or not between the techniques concerning implant failure, whereas the other three studies13,18,19 did not find statistically significant difference. There were no implant failures in two studies.15,17 Only three studies13,15,17 informed of the incidence of postoperative infection, all with no occurrences in a total of 89 patients receiving 237 implants. Nine studies provided information about the marginal bone loss.4,6,11–13,15–18
3.3.
Quality assessment
246
Each trial was assessed for risk of bias, and the scores are summarized in Table 2. Seven studies4,11,12,16–19 were judged to be at high risk of bias and four studies6,13–15 of low risk of bias.
247 248 249
3.4.
250
Meta-analysis
Description of the studies In this study, a fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the implant failure, since statistically significant heterogeneity was not found (P = 0.26; I2 = 21%). The results showed a RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.44–1.75; Fig. 2) for the INFL, suggesting that implant failures in patients receiving implants under the INFL protocol are 0.87 times likely to happen when compared to implant failures in patients receiving implants under the IFL protocol (relative risk reduction of 13% for INFL). However, the procedure used (INFL vs. IFL) did not significantly affect the implant failure rates (P = 0.70). As only three studies13,15,17 informed of the incidence of postoperative infection, and all with no events, no metaanalysis was possible for this outcome. Only four studies6,11,13,15 (245 implants) provided information about the marginal bone loss with standard deviation, necessary for the calculation of comparisons in continuous outcomes (Fig. 3). A fixed-effects model was used to evaluate this outcome, since statistically significant heterogeneity was not found (P = 0.84; I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.74) between the different techniques concerning the marginal bone loss.
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
3.5.
272
Publication bias
The funnel plot did not show asymmetry when the studies reporting the outcome ‘implant failure’ were analyzed (Fig. 4), indicating absence of publication bias.
273 274 275
4.
276
Discussion
The present study proposed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection,
Table 2 – Results of quality assessment. Authors
Degidi and Piattelli4 Degidi and Piattelli16 Degidi et al.17 Lindeboom et al.11 Machtei et al.18 Degidi et al.12 Cannizzaro et al.13 Degidi et al.6 Siebers et al.19 Margossian et al.14 Vogl et al.15 a
Published
Sequence generation (randomized?)
Allocation concealment
Incomplete outcome data addressed
Blinding
Estimated potential risk of bias
2003 2005 2006 2006 2007 2009 2010 2010 2010 2012 2013
No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Unclear Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
No No No No No Unclear Yes Yes No Yesa Yesa
High High High High High High Low Low High Low Low
Unpublished information was obtained by personal communication with one of the authors.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
277 278
JJOD 2316 1–8
6
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2 – Forest plot of comparison of INFL versus IFL for the event ‘implant failure’.
279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307
and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated with dental implants comparing INFL to IFL, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. Concerning the implant failure rates, the idea behind the concept of keeping the temporary restoration out of occlusion is to control the load on the prosthesis in order to allow undisturbed healing. The role of tongue pressure and perioral musculature may be an underestimated factor in immediately provisionalized but unloaded implants. Moreover, occlusion might not be the only determinant of implant survival.11 The results of the present meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the INFL and IFL concerning implant failures. The increase of load, applied to the prosthesis caused by the presence of the normal occlusal contact, seems to be unable to jeopardize or alter the healing process of the implant.6 Some factors may have contributed to such outcome in some studies, that include the use of a resilient acrylic resin for the fabrication of the temporary restoration, the exclusion of parafunctional bruxist patients from the study, and the splinting of the temporary prosthetic work. It has been suggested that it is not the absence of loading per se that is critical for osseointegration, but rather the absence of excessive micromotion at the interface.17 Micromotion consists of a relative movement between the implant surface and surrounding bone during functional loading and it is believed that, above a certain threshold, excessive interfacial micromotion early after the implantation interferes with local bone healing, predisposing to a fibrous tissue interface, preventing the fibrin clot from adhering to the implant surface
during healing.20 Splinting the provisional restoration might have protected the implants from micromotion.15 The small sample size in many studies6,11,13,15,17–19 may also have affected the results concerning implant failure. Even though the importance of meta-analyses is to increase sample size of individual trials to reach more precise estimates of the effects of interventions, in this particular analysis no statistically significant difference was found when comparing these two techniques concerning the implant failure rates (P = 0.70). As there is a wide CI for the RR (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.44–1.75), the uncertainty about the effect size is greater than if the CI was narrower, although there might still be enough precision to make decisions about the utility of the intervention.9 In four studies11,13,15,18 the patients were followed for a short period (1 year). Thus, only early failures could be assessed. A longer follow-up period may lead to an increase in the failure rate. Moreover, the results found in the studies differed from each other, and such discrepancies could be due to factors such as differences in the patients included in the study or the between clinicians placing and restoring the implants. Only three studies13,15,17 provided information regarding the incidence of postoperative infection, all of them with no events. Therefore, no meta-analysis was possible for this outcome. The third outcome analyzed was the marginal bone loss. Marginal bone levels might vary with load distribution patterns between natural teeth and implants, with access for hygiene instruments in splinted provisional restorations21
Fig. 3 – Forest plot of comparison of INFL versus IFL for the event ‘marginal bone loss’. Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
JJOD 2316 1–8 journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4 – Funnel plot for the studies reporting the outcome event ‘implant failure’.
337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376
or with iatrogenic manipulation of the implant during initial healing.22 Early functional loading during the healing phase may have a positive effect on marginal bone levels. Early loading stimuli at the bone-implant interface leads to functional adaptation of the bone (remodeling) and to an improved differentiation of the bone structures, resulting in a higher marginal bone level.22,23 However, the present metaanalysis did not find a statistically significant difference (P = 0.74) between the techniques in what concerns the marginal bone loss. The reason for that may be the short postoperative follow-up period of 1 year found in three11,13,15 of the four studies with available data to produce a comparison, and/or the small sample size in all four studies.6,11,13,15 The biological differences in peri-implant tissue responses between IFL and INFL implants have been analyzed in animal models, where no differences were observed between the ultrastructural morphology of the cells at the interface of implants from both groups in the early phases of osseointegration in minipigs,24 and no statistically significant differences in the bone-to-implant contact percentages were found between groups, in a study performed in dogs.25 The present meta-analysis included non-RCT studies, which is not usually performed. Potential biases are likely to be greater for non-randomized studies compared with RCTs, so results should always be interpreted with caution when they are included in reviews and meta-analyses.9 So what was the reason to include non-randomized studies in the present meta-analysis? The issue is important because metaanalyses are frequently conducted on a limited number of RCTs.26 Shrier27 reviewed a random 1% sample of metaanalyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003 and found that 6 of 16 reviews included two studies or fewer. Furthermore, 158 of 183 analyses conducted in 7 additional studies were limited to two or fewer studies. In meta-analyses such as these, adding more information from observational studies may aid in clinical reasoning and establish a more solid foundation for causal inferences.26 In a metaanalysis, homogeneity implies a mathematical compatibility between the results of each individual trial. Narrowing the inclusion criteria increases homogeneity but also excludes
7
the results of more trials and thus risks the exclusion of significant data. One of the strengths of meta-analysis as a technique for synthesizing research findings on the effectiveness of intervention programs is that it allows those findings to be systematically compared and contrasted across studies.28 What complicates the investigation is the presence of confounding variables in the analyzed studies. The use of grafting in some studies11,13,18 is a confounding factor, as well as inserting the implants only in periodontally susceptible patients,18 in particular regions of the mouth, such as only in the posterior mandible6,15 or only in the maxilla,11 the insertion of some implants in fresh extraction sockets,4,12,13,16,17,19 the use of zirconia implants,13 and the insertion of implants from different brands and surface treatments. Titanium implants with different surface modifications show a wide range of chemical, physical properties, and surface topographies and morphologies, depending on how they are prepared and handled,29–31 while it is not clear whether, in general, one surface modification is better than the other.32 The results of the present study should be interpreted with caution considering its limitations. The presence of confounding factors may have affected the long-term outcomes, regardless of whether the implants were submitted to INFL or IFL. The impact of such variables on the implant survival rate, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss outcomes is difficult to estimate if these factors are not identified separately between the two different procedures in order to perform a meta-regression analysis. Therefore, lack of control of the confounding factors limited the potential to draw robust conclusions.
377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407
5.
408
Conclusions
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the differences in occlusal loading between INFL and IFL might not affect the survival of these dental implants. There was also no statistically significant difference between the two techniques concerning the marginal bone loss.
409 410 411 412 413 414
Acknowledgements
415
This work was supported by CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı´fico e Tecnolo´gico–Brazil. The authors would like to thank Dr. Derk Siebers, Dr. Patrice Margossian, and Dr. Marlene Stopper, who provided us some missing information about their studies.
416 417 418 419 420
references
421
1. Bra˚nemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstro¨m J, Halle´n O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Supplementum 1977;16:1–132. 2. Chrcanovic BR, Martins MD, Wennerberg A. Immediate placement of implants into infected sites: a systematic
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
422 423 424 425 426 427 428
JJOD 2316 1–8
8 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489
journal of dentistry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
review. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2013. doi.org/10.1111/cid.12098.. ¨ stman PO, Wennerberg A, Ekestubbe A, Albrektsson T. O Immediate Occlusal Loading of NanoTiteTM Tapered Implants: a Prospective 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2013;15:809–18. Degidi M, Piattelli A. Immediate functional and nonfunctional loading of dental implants: a 2- to 60-month follow-up study of 646 titanium implants. Journal of Periodontology 2003;74:225–41. Misch CE. Nonfunctional immediate teeth. Dentistry Today 1998;17:88–91. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A. A comparison between immediate loading and immediate restoration in cases of partial posterior mandibular edentulism: a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2010;21:682–7. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2014;41:443–76. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;151. 264-9, W64. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5. 1. 0. [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed on 03/03/2014.. Egger M, Smith GD. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context.. London: BMJ books; 2003. p. 23–42. Lindeboom JA, Frenken JW, Dubois L, Frank M, Abbink I, Kroon FH. Immediate loading versus immediate provisionalization of maxillary single-tooth replacement: A prospective randomized study with BioCom implants. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2006;64:936–42. Degidi M, Iezzi G, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Comparative analysis of immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods: a 5year follow-up of 550 dental implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2009;11:257–66. Cannizzaro G, Torchio C, Felice P, Leone M, Esposito M. Immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading of single zirconia implants. A multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology 2010;3:111–20. Margossian P, Mariani P, Stephan G, Margerit J, Jorgensen C. Immediate loading of mandibular dental implants in partially edentulous patients: a prospective randomized comparative study. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 2012;32:e51–8. Vogl S, Stopper M, Hof M, Wegscheider WA, Lorenzoni M. Immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading of implants: a randomized clinical pilot study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2013. doi.org/10.1111/cid.12157.. Degidi M, Piattelli A. Comparative analysis study of 702 dental implants subjected to immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods with a follow-up of up to 24 months. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2005;20:99–107.
17. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded titanium implants with a porous anodized surface with at least 36 months of follow-up. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2006;8:169–77. 18. Machtei EE, Frankenthal S, Blumenfeld I, Gutmacher Z, Horwitz J. Dental implants for immediate fixed restoration of partially edentulous patients: a 1-year prospective pilot clinical trial in periodontally susceptible patients. Journal of Periodontology 2007;78:1188–94. 19. Siebers D, Gehrke P, Schliephake H. Immediate versus delayed function of dental implants: a 1- to 7-year follow-up study of 222 implants. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2010;25:1195–202. 20. Glauser R, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J, Sennerby L, Portmann M, Ruhstaller P, Ha¨mmerle CH. Immediate occlusal loading of Branemark TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2003;5:47–56. 21. Payer M, Heschl A, Wimmer G, Wegscheider W, Kirmeier R, Lorenzoni M. Immediate provisional restoration of screw-type implants in the posterior mandible: results after 5 years of clinical function. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2010;21:815–21. 22. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 1998;43:192–203. 23. Brunski JB. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface. Clinical Materials 1992;10:153–201. 24. Meyer U, Joos U, Mythili J, Stamm T, Hohoff A, Fillies T, Stratmann U, Wiesmann HP. Ultrastructural characterization of the implant/bone interface of immediately loaded dental implants. Biomaterials 2004;25:1959–67. 25. Ghavanati F, Shayeg SS, Rahimi H, Sharifi D, Ghanavati F, Khalesseh N, Eslami B. The effect of loading time of osseointegration and new bone formation around dental implants. A histologic and histomorphometric study in dogs. Journal of Periodontology 2006;77:1701–7. 26. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. American Journal of Epidemiology 2007;166:1203–9. 27. Shrier I. Cochrane Reviews: new blocks on the kids. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2003;37:473–4. 28. Lipsey MW. Those confounded moderators in metaanalysis: good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2003;587:69–81. 29. Chrcanovic BR, Pedrosa AR, Martins MD. Chemical and topographic analysis of treated surfaces of five different commercial dental titanium implants. Materials Research 2012;15:372–82. 30. Chrcanovic BR, Lea˜o NLC, Martins MD. Influence of different acid etchings on the superficial characteristics of Ti sandblasted with Al2O3. Materials Research 2013;16:1006–14. 31. Chrcanovic BR, Martins MD. Study of the influence of acid etching treatments on the superficial characteristics of Ti. Materials Research 2014;17:373–80. 32. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2010;25:63–74.
Please cite this article in press as: Chrcanovic BR, et al. Immediate nonfunctional versus immediate functional loading and dental implant failure rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.010
490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551
