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?


Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 (2014), No. 2     21. Mar. 2014
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 (2014), No. 2  (21.03.2014)

Page 344-352, doi:10.11607/jomi.2712, PubMed:24683560

Comparison of Implant Success Rates with Different Loading Protocols: A Meta-Analysis
Su, MeiYing / Shi, Bin / Zhu, Yan / Guo, Yi / Zhang, Yufeng / Xia, Haibin / Zhao, Lei
Purpose: To systematically evaluate implant success rates with different loading protocols.
Materials and Methods: A search was conducted of electronic databases, including The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, PubMed, SciSearch, Medline, and EMBASE, for all randomized controlled trials published between 1997 and 2011 to compare implant success rates among different loading methods. The quality of randomized controlled trials was critically appraised, and the data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted of the eligible randomized controlled trials.
Results: A total of 26 randomized controlled trials met the criteria for meta-analysis. The quality of these articles was moderate. Eight trials compared immediate and early loading (relative risk [RR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.93, P = .79), 7 compared early with delayed loading (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.52-2.72, P = .69), and 11 compared immediate and delayed loading (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.52-2.72, P = .69).
Conclusions: The limited evidence shows that there is no significant difference in implant success rates with different loading protocols.

Keywords: delayed loading, dental implants, early loading, immediate loading, meta-analysis
fulltext (no access granted) Endnote-Export