We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 3     31. May 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 3  (31.05.2018)

Page 653-660, doi:10.11607/jomi.5870, PubMed:29543929

Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Three-Implant-Supported Fixed-Prosthesis Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Mandible: Immediate Versus Delayed Loading
Primo, Bruno Tochetto / Mezzari, Leonardo Marcos / da Fontoura Frasca, Luís Carlos / Linderman, Raquel / Rivaldo, Elken Gomes
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of mandibular rehabilitation with fixed prostheses on three implants with immediate versus delayed loading.
Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 21 patients who underwent treatment with immediate loading and 23 who received delayed loading. All had worn their prostheses for at least 18 months. Radiographic evaluation of bone loss was carried out in Adobe Photoshop CS5 by a single calibrated examiner using digitized panoramic radiographs. Clinical examination of the technical conditions of the prosthetic device assessed the condition of the acrylic resin base, dental occlusion, metal framework, presence of cover screws, screw fixation of the prosthesis and abutments, length of cantilever (effort) and resistance arms, presence of plaque on prosthetic abutments, and hygiene of the prosthesis.
Results: One implant failed in each group, resulting in a 95.23% treatment success rate with immediate loading and 95.65% with delayed loading (no statistically significant between-group difference). In the immediate-loading group, the mean bone loss was 1.96 ± 0.73 mm around central implants and 1.64 ± 0.84 mm at distal implants. In the delayed-loading group, the mean bone loss was 1.85 ± 0.67 mm around central implants and 1.70 ± 0.77 mm at distal implants. According to Student t test, there was no significant within-group difference in bone loss and no difference between the immediate-loading and delayed-loading groups. The only prosthesis-related complications that differed significantly between groups were "condition of the acrylic base," "occlusion," and "presence of right cover screw." There was no statistically significant association of lever arm ratio with peri-implant bone loss or bone loss on the mesial surfaces compared to the distal surfaces of the distal implants.
Conclusion: The three-implant-supported fixed prosthesis protocol tested in this study proved to be a viable therapeutic strategy for mandibular edentulous patients with maxillary complete dentures, regardless of whether loading was immediate or delayed, with no difference in peri-implant bone loss.

Keywords: dental implants, edentulous mandible, fixed dentures, implant-supported prosthesis, osseointegration