IM0310

08 I I research _ dental implant loading implants3_2010 were “insufficient scientific basis” or any procedure that was entirely transparent before allocation, such as an open list of random numbers. Hence, after a thorough reading of the studies included in this re- view, one of these scores has been qualified accord- ing to accuracy and the underlying scientific bases. _Results In 2002, a consensus meeting was convened within the World Congress organized by the Spanish Board of Implantology in Barcelona.5 There was an agreement on terminology for the timing of loading (immediate, early, delayed) and for the implant load- ing (occlusal loading and nonocclusal loading). Ac- cordingtothisconsensus meetingthefollowingter- minology was described: Immediateloading Theprosthesisisattachedtotheimplantsthesame day the implants are placed Earlyloading The prosthesis is attached at a second procedure, earlier than the conventional healing period of 3 to 6 months. The time of loading is started after some days/weeks. Delayedloading The prosthesis is attached at a second procedure after a conventional healing period of 3 to 6 months. Occlusalloading The crown/bridge is in contact with the opposing dentition in centric occlusion. Nonocclusalloading The crown/ bridge is not in contact in centric oc- clusionwiththeopposingdentitioninnaturaljawpo- sition. Theavailableliteraturedemonstratesthepossibil- ityofachievinggoodresultswithdifferentprotocols, especiallywithimmediateloadingprotocol,atleastin good-quality bone, which supports the idea that theseconceptsmayserveasaviableoptioninimplant dentistry. However, the prerequisites for achieving and maintaining acceptable results and the limita- tionsofimmediate/earlyloadingarenotfullyknown. Moreover, the terminology used in these protocols is confusingsincethedifferencebetweendifferentpro- tocols is not well defined, and publication titles can therefore be very misleading. Of 26 potential studies, 7 have been excluded because of insufficient patient selection data or prothesis loading longer than one day (immediate loading), not corresponding to the Barcelonaconsensus,and5havebeenexcludedsince the follow up was shorter than 12 months. Fourteen studies have been introduced in this review, the con- clusions having been discussed on their basis. The majority of the studies considered in this re- viewregisteredarelativelyshortfollowup.In6stud- ies the follow up covered a period longer than 24 months. Daniel Sullivan, Giampaolo Vicenzi, Sylvan Feld- manperformedamulticenterstudy:theperformance ofOsseotiteimplantsafteran1stagesurgeryandab- breviated healing period of 2 months in 10 private practicecenters.142patients,partiallyorcompletely edentulous, enrolled in this early loading study, re- ceived 526 implants, 65.4 % in mandible and 34.6 % inmaxilla.Implantswereloadedafterahealingperiod ofabouttwomonths.Thedistributionoftheprosthe- sis types included 118 single tooth restoration (118 implants), 134 short-span prosthesis (327 implants) and 16 long-span restoration (81 implants). Eight of the eleven implant failures occurred dur- ing nonsubmerged healing prior to prosthetic load- ing. Provisional restoration was placed at 2.1 ± 0.5 months, at which time implants were evaluated for mobility,gingivalhealthandradiolucency.Thecumu- lative success rate of these 526 implants was 97.9 % at 5 years. Theseresultssuggestthatsuccesscanbeexpected with Osseotite implants after a nonsubmerged re- duced healing period of two months in this patient population.7 Par-Ölov Östman, Mats Hellman, Lars Sennerby evaluated in a prospective clinical study the radi- ographic and clinical outcome of immediately load- ing implants in the partial edentulous mandible over a 4 year follow up period. 96 patients were evaluated and 77 patients who mettheinclusioncriteriawereincluded.Atotalof111 fixed partial dentures supported by 257 Brånemark System implants (77 turned and 180 Ti Unite im- plants) was delivered. Four (1.16 %) of the 257 im- plants did not osseointegrate after 4 years. Three turned implants (3.9 %) and one oxidized implant (0.6 %) failed after 4 to 13 months. Immediate load- ingofimplantswithfirmprimarystabilityinpartially edentulous areas of the mandible appears to be a vi- able procedure with predictable outcome.8 Richard P. Kinsel, Mindy Liss evaluated in a retro- spective study the effects of implants dimensions, surface treatment, location in the dental arch, num- bersofsupportingimplantabutments,surgicaltech- nique, and generally recognized risk factors on the survival of a series of single stage Straumann dental