Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Jan-Feb;20(1):99-107.

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.

Author information

  • 1Dental School, University of Chieti, Italy.

Erratum in

  • Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Mar-Apr;20(2):306.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate immediate functionally loaded (IFL) and immediate nonfunctionally loaded (INFL) implants for various indications compared to a control group with a conventional healing period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Two hundred fifty-three patients took part in the study. A total of 702 XiVE implants (Dentsply/Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) were placed: 253 IFL implants, 135 INFL implants, and 314 controls.

RESULTS:

In each of the 3 groups, 2 implants failed. For all the other implants involved, from a clinical and radiographic point of view, osseointegration was successful.

DISCUSSION:

As long as the prerequisites are fulfilled, immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading are predictable techniques, not only in completely edentulous patients but also in partially edentulous patients.

CONCLUSION:

Immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading appear to be techniques that can provide satisfactory implant success rates in selected cases.

PMID:
15747680
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk