Earlyloading was identified as a critical factor and therefore, several waiting
times were attempted until the establishment of a period of at least three
months for the mandible and five to six months for the maxilla. The first
studies of implant follow-up constituted the scientific basis of modern
implantology. Both a two-stage surgical protocol and a single surgical
procedure protocol required a waiting time for osseointegration (OI) to occur.
Thisconcept of a healing period, before the implants were submitted to functional
load, was based on the existing knowledge related to bone repair of fractures
and osteotomies that required a period of 3 to 6 months before the functional
loads could be gradually applied. With the advancement of the researches, even
considering the high clinical success rates of the late loading techniques,
some researchers began to question the possibility of reducing the time for the
implants to be submitted to the load, since the loading by itself would not
impede the process of healing. Therefore, Immediate loading (IL) was defined as
“installation of a prosthetic element on implant without OI.
As a recentliterature support, a total of 378 implants were placed in 56 patients. Forty
upper and lower arches were restored and 16 patients received bimaxillary
rehabilitation. The mean duration of follow-up was 50 months, and the patient’s
prevalence of implant and peri-implantitis was 14.3% and 50.0 %, respectively.
The mucosa affected 56.9% of the implants and 50.0% of the patients. The
survival rate was 96.4% per patient, but reached 99.5% in the implant-based
analysis and the success rate was 95.5% for implants and 80.4% for patients.
Full loaded full arch restorations immediately have an acceptable result after
1 to 9 years of follow-up. However, the incidence of peri-implant diseases is
high, and further research is needed to confirm whether these can compromise
the predictability of prostheses in the long term.
No comments:
Post a Comment