Osseointegrated dental implants have been available since the late 1970s, initial placement protocols recommended an initial load free healing period. Improved understanding of osseointegration has lead to the use of immediate or early loading protocols. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility of loading four implants with a pre-existing denture converted to [read the full story…]
Dental implants are increasingly being used to replace missing teeth in contrast to the more traditional use of bridges or dentures. Implants have been used since the 1970s with the recommendation that they were kept load –free during the healing period (3-4months for the mandible, 6-8 months for the maxilla) . Since the 1990s studies [read the full story…]
This review by Menini et al aimed to evaluate the prognosis of immediately loaded full-arch prostheses supported by both upright and tilted implants in the maxillae, after at least 1 yr. of function. The authors searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE databases for human studies that included participants of [read the full story…]
The main aim of this systematic review was to quantitatively estimate the survival and success rates of immediate implants and the implant-supported prosthesis, the prevalence of biological, technical and aesthetic complications, and the magnitude of soft and hard tissue changes following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. The MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Cochrane library databases [read the full story…]
The traditional approach to placing dental implants was to submerge them and keep them load-free for 3–8 months to minimize the risk of implant failures. During the healing phase temporary prosthesis are often used and patients can find these uncomfortable. Consequently shorter healing periods without jeopardizing implant success would be beneficial. Nowadays immediate and early [read the full story…]
This review originally published in 2009 has now had a critical summary of it prepared under the auspices of the American Dental Association Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry The appraiser considered that this was a good systematic review that had used accepted methods and applied rigourous selection criteria. There was homogeneity among the 5 studies included [read the full story…]
