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.

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.