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.

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.