Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

Ahead of print

doi: 10.17219/dmp/150111

Publication type: review

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Role of implant loading time in the prevention of marginal bone loss after implant-supported restorations: A targeted review

Maciej Krawiec1,A,B,C,D,F, Cyprian Olchowy1,A,B,C,E,F, Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross1,B,C,D,F, Jakub Hadzik1,B,C,D,F, Marzena Dominiak1,A,C,E,F

1 Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland


The implant-supported restoration of missing teeth is a recognized method of treatment that ensures a functional, esthetic and durable effect, along with patient satisfaction. However, the preferable time of dental implant loading is under debate. Currently, 3 protocols are used: immediate loading; early loading; and conventional (late) loading. Immediate loading provides benefits such as short treatment time, the elimination of the second surgery required for later loading protocols, the protection of the gingival papilla, an immediate esthetic effect, and high patient satisfaction. This review aimed to summarize the evidence on the impact of loading time on marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants, which is considered a useful measure of implantological treatment effects. A literature search was conducted based on the PubMed/MEDLINE database. The search focused on studies providing the MBL values by protocol. Out of the 1,366 hits received in the initial search, 10 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. At 12 months, the MBL range was 0.17–1.86 mm in patients undergoing the immediate protocol, 0.14–1.22 mm in patients undergoing the early protocol, and 0.44–0.91 mm in patients undergoing the late protocol. The studies were heterogeneous, but no significant differences in the occurrence of MBL were reported between the immediately and early loaded implants as compared with the conventionally loaded ones. Further studies are needed to determine other factors that might be related to the type of protocol, important for optimal patient treatment.

Keywords: dental implants, marginal bone loss, loading protocol, loading time


Dental treatment involving implants is an effective and widely used method of restoring missing teeth, which may result from untreated caries, injuries, tumors, or congenital defects (hypodontia). The reconstruction of missing teeth with the application of implants is a recognized method of treatment. It ensures functional, esthetic and durable restoration, along with patient satisfaction. Over the years, efforts have been made to shorten the duration of implant treatment.

Currently, success in implant therapy is not only based on the implant survival rate and the condition of the tissue in direct implant vicinity, as previously suggested by Albrektsson et al.1 and Buser et al.,2 but also on the full esthetic effect and patient satisfaction. The peri-implant soft tissue, i.e., the pink esthetic score (PES), is assessed using 5 parameters: the mesial papilla; the distal papilla; the curvatures of the facial mucosa; the level of the facial mucosa; and root convexity/soft tissue color and texture. To evaluate the white esthetic score (WES) of the visible portion of the implant restoration, 5 parameters are taken into consideration: the tooth form; the outline/volume of the clinical crown; color; surface texture; and translucency. Each of the 5 parameters of PES and WES was graded with a 0-1-2 score, and consequently, the assessment resulted in the lowest score of 0 and the highest score of 10 for each of the 2 indices.3 High PES and WES scores indicate good condition of soft tissues and esthetic prosthetic reconstruction. In implant-supported prosthetic reconstruction, we can distinguish 3 protocols: immediate loading; early loading; and conventional (late) loading.4 All 3 protocols are used for different types of restorations – single, multiple and full-arch.

The extent of marginal bone loss (MBL) is the basic indicator of peri-implantitis. Marginal bone loss is measured from the neck of the implant to the first bone-to-implant contact and is determined during a radiological examination. Marginal bone loss has been considered a useful measure to evaluate the effects of treatment with implants. This review aimed to summarize the current evidence on the impact of loading time on MBL around dental implants.


A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE database with the use of advanced search options. Only publications in English, studies on humans with an observation period of at least 12 months as determined by authors, and studies published between January 2002 and June 2021 were considered. No restrictions in terms of geographical scope were imposed. Only full-text articles were included; abstracts and posters were excluded. The following search terms and their combinations were used: ‘implant loading’; ‘protocol’; and ‘marginal bone loss’. The inclusion criteria are reported according to the PICOS criteria and are presented in Table 1. The search was run on February 17, 2022. The list of titles, abstracts and full texts was reviewed by one reviewer according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify and select articles related to the topic of interest. The non-systematic approach was used with regard to the qualitative analysis of the identified publications. The extracted data included the loading protocol, the MBL values and the factors affecting the degree of MBL.


After searching PubMed with the use of the keywords related to implantological treatment and its association with MBL, we received 1,366 hits, of which 10 were included in the qualitative analysis. The flowchart of the study is depicted in Figure 1.

Overall, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and reported values for MBL, along with definitions of loading protocols; however, they presented data for different follow-up periods and different patient populations. Overall, at 12 months, the MBL values ranged from 0.17 mm to 1.86 mm in patients undergoing the immediate protocol, from 0.14 mm to 1.22 mm in patients undergoing the early protocol, and from 0.44 mm to 0.91 mm in patients undergoing the late protocol. The summary of the studies is presented in Table 2.


Our review showed that there is still insufficient evidence on the impact of the implant loading protocols on maintaining healthy bone tissue as measured with MBL. Most identified studies concluded that differences in MBL between patients receiving implants according to different loading protocols were not significant. However, a great heterogeneity was observed among studies. They differed in terms of follow-up periods, characteristics of the populations studied, sample sizes, and other factors related to treatment.

Immediate loading

In the literature there is no agreement on the time at which a prosthetic construction is attached to the implant. Ostman defines immediate loading, also called direct loading, as attaching a prosthetic construction to the implant up to 24 h after implantation.15 Galli et al. considered 48 h as the maximum time of the restoration placement on the implant.8 According to Esposito et al., immediate loading can be defined as taking place up to 7 days after implantation.16 There is also disagreement with regard to the occlusal contact of crowns or other prosthetic restoration. Some authors claim that pros­thetic restorations loaded immediately can be used without occlusal contacts, while others claim that the term “immediate loading” applies only to prosthetic restorations that are in full occlusion, both in centric and eccentric movements.17, 18, 19 However, there is agreement that the most important criterion for applying the immediate loading protocol is that the implant achieves adequate primary stabilization. This is possible due to a high value of insertion torque, which seems to be crucial in the immediate loading procedure. On the basis of many studies identified in Esposito et al.’s review, this value was determined to be above 35 Ncm.16

Primary stabilization is the mechanical anchoring of the implant to bone. It enables the correct process of osseointegration, i.e., the direct functional and structural connection of bone tissue with the implant surface.20, 21 Proper primary stabilization is a condition of the implant when movements are sufficiently reduced. Micromovements cannot be completely eliminated, but can be reduced by binding implants together (for example in a bridge), and also by removing lateral contacts, thus diminishing lateral forces.22 Unless primary stabilization is achieved, healing is disturbed by inhibiting osteoblasts. Consequently, connective tissue is formed between the implant and bone (fibrointegration), which results in the loss of the implant. This phenomenon has been studied in animal models.23

Over the years, many studies have been carried out on factors that may affect primary stabilization, including the following:

– the appropriate preparation of the implant bed18;

– the use of appropriate techniques, such as osseodensification drilling24;

– the appropriate shape and length of the implant16;

– the appropriate modification of the implant surface10, 25;

– the type of implant and the distribution of load26, 27;

– the condition of bone tissue and its changes during treatment28;

– demographic factors9; and

– the type of crown.9

The structure of the implant surface is relatively well examined. As previously shown, the appropriate modification of the implant surface, e.g., chemical modification through the immersion of the implant in a special solution11 or acid etching14, may increase the probability of achieving primary stabilization by the implant at a level that allows its immediate loading.

The use of immediate implant loading provides many benefits. First of all, it reduces treatment time, which posi­tively affects patient satisfaction. The quick restoration of missing teeth increases patient comfort and reduces the negative psychological effects caused by tooth loss.29 Furthermore, the second surgery is avoided to uncover the implant and insert an abutment. With the immediate insertion of a crown, it is more likely to maintain the appropriate tissue contour (especially of the gingival papilla) with a better esthetic result.30 The risk factors for complications that may occur during immediate loading are significant malocclusion, bruxism, a previous implant loss, and any other general contraindications for conventional implantation.

Early loading

Early loading is defined as the implant-prosthetic restoration carried out up to 2–3 months after implantation; however, the average time is 3–6 weeks. This period is critical due to a decline in primary stabilization and still incomplete secondary stabilization.15, 16, 31 Nevertheless, during this time, the primary bone tissue is formed, the mechanical properties of which enable prosthetic reconstruction. Therefore, it seems reasonable to load the implant 3–4 weeks after implantation. Furthermore, implants with a modified surface achieve secondary stabilization faster than conventional implants.32

The immediate and early loading of implants have many positive aspects, e.g., fewer surgical interventions, the reduction of soft and hard tissue loss, or the shortening of total treatment time. Those benefits enable basic functions, such as eating, chewing and articulating, to be resumed faster.33 The use of early or immediate loading is of importance, especially for the esthetic result. This applies to the area between the second right premolar and the second left premolar, which greatly affects the patient’s appearance and well-being.

Late loading

The term “late loading” is used when the prosthetic structure is attached late, after the conventional healing period, which lasts at least 3–6 months.6, 31 This is a 3-step procedure. In the 1st stage, the implant site is allowed to fully heal before loading. During this phase, the osseo­integration process occurs. After 3–6 months, the 2nd stage takes place, i.e., the exposure of the implant and the insertion of the healing screw (abutment). The 3rd stage involves placing a prosthetic crown.

Late loading is the most common protocol. One of its advantages is a reduced risk of implant loss after loading.16 It is recommended in situations where primary stabilization was not achieved using a minimal insertion torque above 20 Ncm, in cases with simultaneous extensive augmentation, or when the patient is not convinced of immediate loading and does not accept the associated risks.

Marginal bone loss

Marginal bone loss is a key parameter that is used to assess the proper healing and functioning of implants.34 This parameter is important, as the gradual loss of bone around the implant may lead to its loss. Researchers report different values of MBL. Despite somewhat varying results, MBL of 2 mm is generally regarded as the maximum acceptable value. During the 1st year after implantation, an acceptable MBL value should be no more than 1.5 mm, with an increase of 0.2 mm per year in subsequent years.1, 35 Currently, however, it is claimed that no marginal bone atrophy is the only evidence of the adequate healing of the implant (the so-called “zero bone loss concept”).36 It is worth considering, especially in young patients, in whom even the ‘acceptable’ bone loss would amount to 6 mm 20 years after implantation.

Marginal bone loss depends on many factors. One of the most important ones is the thickness of the gingiva around the implants. The critical value is defined as 2 mm; below this value, the risk of atrophy is much higher.37

Other factors include:

– poor oral hygiene5;

– the position of the implant in relation to the anatomy of the bone13, 38;

– the presence of keratinized gingiva39, 40;

– an improperly made prosthetic restoration41;

– the type of implant42, 43;

– the type of prosthetic restoration44;

– the type of abutment, and the type of connection between the implant and the abutment45, 46;

– bruxism47;

– tobacco smoking9, 48;

– a history of periodontal disease49, 50;

– general diseases, e.g., diabetes5, 51; and

– the experience of the operator and the dental technician.52, 53

It should be noted that marginal bone atrophy is independent of gender, the degree of primary and secondary stabilization, and the crown-to-implant ratio, while the effect of age is inconclusive.54, 55, 56

To assess the MBL value, cone-beam computed tomo­graphy (CBCT) or radiovisiography (RVG) can be used. In order to correctly determine it, 2 measurements – made on the day of implantation and during the follow-up visit – should be compared. Using the ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) principle, to minimize the radiation dose, 2 RVG (2–5 microSv) images taken using the right angle technique are sufficient to measure MBL. This ensures the repeatability of the images, and thus the correctness of the measurements.57

General considerations

Receiving an answer to the question of whether immediate or early implant loading have important clinical implications as compared to the conventional treatment is important for the physician and the patient, since it enables faster restoration of the functions of the stomatognathic system. Therefore, in recent years, scientists have searched for ways of shorten­ing the time of treatment without affecting its quality. Much research has been conducted to assess the effect of loading time on MBL. A meta-analysis by Esposito et al. showed that there were no significant differences between immediate and conventional loading.16 In contrast, comparisons between early (6 weeks) and conventional loading as well as between early and immediate loading provide insufficient and inconclusive evidence to determine whether there are any clinically significant differences between the protocols. A meta-analysis by Suarez et al., which included 11 articles, showed that the time of  implant loading did not affect MBL.31 It was also revealed that after achieving osseointegration, there were no differences between the protocols.31 Similar conclusions can be drawn based on other meta-analyses.58, 59, 60, 61

The conclusions of the meta-analyses are in line with those of clinical trials, but the latter provide a deeper understanding of other factors that can play a role in the maintenance of proper bone tissue. A prospective controlled clinical trial conducted by De Smet et al. reported that distal implants were more likely to fail in the immediate loading protocol.62 According to Kawai and Taylor, the immediately loaded implants showed a loss of about 0.6 mm in the first 12 months, and the same or greater value in the 2nd year.63 Conversely, the implants receiving conventional loading showed almost the same loss as the immediately loaded implants in the 1st year, but resulted in less MBL in the following year.63 Aires and Berger64 as well as Crespi et al.7 claim that the loading of implants immediately after extraction can be carried out successfully. Bilhan et al.6 and Sommer et al.29 indicate that late loading increases the risk of MBL. This is due to the lack of occlusal forces in this protocol, which act on the implant and activate proper bone remodeling. However, in some reports, immediate or early implant loading may be associated with slightly greater MBL, and also with a higher overall risk of implant failure.4, 65 Discrepancies in the results may be due to many reasons.19, 65 Possible factors include research bias, a small number of studies available in the literature, small samples sizes, short observation periods, ambiguous definitions of implant loading time, the types of implants and prosthetic reconstruction used, the characteristics of missing teeth (single, multiple, in the mandible, in the maxilla, anterior or lateral), the previously conducted augmentation procedures, whether the reconstruction is made in occlusion or not, etc. Thus, more well-designed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in line with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guide­lines are needed.16 It is also important that the treating physician understands the healing processes of bone and soft tissue, and performs a thorough examination of the patient’s characteristics, which allows selecting the appropriate therapy and avoiding possible complications.


The analysis of the available data leads to the conclusion that there are no statistically significant differences in the occurrence of marginal bone atrophy between the immediately and early loaded implants as compared to the conventionally loaded ones. Nevertheless, immediate and early implant loading are important alternatives for properly selected and compliant patients undergoing treatment according to the guidelines. Further studies are needed to determine other factors, in addition to the type of protocol, to ensure better patient satisfaction .

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Data availability

All data analyzed during this study is included in this published article.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.


Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

PICOS model

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria


adult human population

animal models


implantological treatment


controlled or single-arm studies


MBL evaluated during
at least 1 year of follow-up

below 1 year

Study design

RCT, cohort study,
case–control study, prospective and retrospective studies

review, meta-analysis, letter to the editor, editorial, opinion

MBL – marginal bone loss; RCT – randomized clinical trial.
Table 2. Characteristics of the selected studies


Study design

Follow-up period

Type of loading


Al Amri et al.

30 healthy people

2 years


0.46 ±0.16

30 T2D patients (HbA1c: 6.1–8.0%)

0.58 ±0.15

31 T2D patients (HbA1c: 8.1–10.0%)

0.59 ±0.20

Bilhan et al.

252 implants in 87 patients

3 years

early (60–90 days)

1.01 ±0.15

late (91–140 days)

0.90 ±0.18

late (>140 days)

1.07 ±0.13

Crespi et al.

160 implants in 27 patients

18 months

immediate, distal side, maxilla

0.84 ±0.69

immediate, distal side, mandible

1.24 ±0.60

Galli et al.

104 implants in 52 patients

14 months


1.10 ±0.58


1.11 ±0.54

Gjelvold et al.

2 implants

12 months

immediate (smokers)

1.86 ±1.33

5 implants

late (smokers)

0.91 ±0.66

22 implants

immediate (non-smokers)

0.37 ±0.55

18 implants

late (non-smokers)

0.44 ±0.62

Krawiec et al.

40 implants

12 months

early (within 4 weeks)

0.14 ±0.24

Krawiec et al.

40 implants

12 months

early (within 4 weeks)

0.20 ±0.88

Meijer and Raghoebar

15 implants in 15 patients

12 months


0.17 ±0.73

Pellicer-Chover et al.

10 crestal implants

12 months


0.06 ±1.11

13 subcrestal implants

1.22 ±1.06

Zöllner et al.

383 implants

3 years


0.70 ±0.83


0.56 ±0.73


0.82 ±0.89

T2D – type 2 diabetes; HbA1c – glycated hemoglobin.


Fig. 1. Flow chart of the study selection process for the systematic review

References (65)

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11–25. PMID:3527955.
  2. Buser D, Brägger U, Lang NP, Nyman S. Regeneration and enlargement of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990;1(1):22–32. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010104.x
  3. Lanza A, Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Femiano F, Itro A. Clinical application of the PES/WES index on natural teeth: Case report and literature review. Case Rep Dent. 2017;2017:9659062. doi:10.1155/2017/9659062
  4. Zhu Y, Zheng X, Zeng G, et al. Clinical efficacy of early loading versus conventional loading of dental implants. Sci Rep. 2015;5:15995. doi:10.1038/srep15995
  5. Al Amri MD, Kellesarian SV, Al-Kheraif AA, Malmstrom H, Javed F, Romanos GE. Effect of oral hygiene maintenance on HbA1c levels and peri-implant parameters around immediately-loaded dental implants placed in type-2 diabetic patients: 2 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(11):1439–1443. doi:10.1111/clr.12758
  6. Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Arat S. The role of timing of loading on later marginal bone loss around dental implants: A retrospective clinical study. J Oral Implantol. 2010;36(5):363–376. doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-09-00078
  7. Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E, Romanos GE. Immediate occlusal loading of implants placed in fresh sockets after tooth extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(6):955–962. PMID:18271377.
  8. Galli F, Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Testori T, Esposito M. Immediate non-occlusal vs. early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients: A multicentre randomized clinical trial. Peri-implant bone and soft-tissue levels. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(6):546–552. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01530.x
  9. Gjelvold B, Kisch J, Chrcanovic BR. A randomized clinical trial comparing immediate loading and delayed loading of single-tooth implants: 5-year results. J Clin Med. 2021;10(5):1077. doi:10.3390/jcm10051077
  10. Krawiec M, Hadzik J, Olchowy C, Dominiak M, Kubasiewicz-Ross P. Aesthetic outcomes of early occlusal loaded SLA dental implants with hydroxyl ion modified surface – a 12 months prospective study. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(21):6353. doi:10.3390/ma14216353
  11. Krawiec M, Hadzik J, Dominiak M, Grzebieluch W, Błaszczyszyn A, Kubasiewicz-Ross P. Early loading of titanium dental implants with hydroxyl ion modified surface: A 12-month prospective clinical trial. Appl Sci. 2021;11(7):2958. doi:10.3390/app11072958
  12. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites: A 1-year prospective case series pilot study. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):3. doi:10.1186/s40729-019-0201-7
  13. Pellicer-Chover H, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(1):e103–e110. doi:10.4317/medoral.20747
  14. Zöllner A, Ganeles J, Korostoff J, Guerra F, Krafft T, Brägger U. Immediate and early non-occlusal loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: Interim results from a prospective multicenter randomized-controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(5):442–450. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01517.x
  15. Ostman PO. Immediate/early loading of dental implants. Clinical documentation and presentation of a treatment concept. Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:90–112. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2007.00244.x
  16. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Different times for loading dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(3):CD003878. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003878.pub5
  17. D’Amico C, Bocchieri S, Sambataro S, Surace G, Stumpo C, Fiorillo L. Occlusal load considerations in implant-supported fixed restorations. Prosthesis. 2020;2(4):252–265. doi:10.3390/prosthesis2040023
  18. Cannizzaro G, Leone M. Restoration of partially edentulous patients using dental implants with a microtextured surface: A prospective comparison of delayed and immediate full occlusal loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(4):512–522. PMID:12939002.
  19. Avila G, Galindo P, Rios H, Wang HL. Immediate implant loading: Current status from available literature. Implant Dent. 2007;16(3):235–245. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e3180de4ec5
  20. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155–170. doi:10.3109/17453678108991776
  21. Brunski JB, Moccia AF Jr., Pollack SR, Korostoff E, Trachtenberg DI. The influence of functional use of endosseous dental implants on the tissue–implant interface. I. Histological aspects. J Dent Res. 1979;58(10):1953–1969. doi:10.1177/00220345790580100201
  22. Silva AS, Martins D, de Sá J, Mendes JM. Clinical evaluation of the implant survival rate in patients subjected to immediate implant loading protocols. Dent Med Probl. 2021;58(1):61–68. doi:10.17219/dmp/130088
  23. Roberts WE, Smith RK, Zilberman Y, Mozsary PG, Smith RS. Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(2):95–111. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(84)90301-4
  24. Lahens B, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, et al. The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments: A study in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019;107(3):615–623. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.34154
  25. Roccuzzo M, Aglietta M, Bunino M, Bonino L. Early loading of sandblasted and acid-etched implants: A randomized-controlled double-blind split-mouth study. Five-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(2):148–152. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01426.x
  26. Motta Silveira MP, Campaner LM, Bottino MA, Nishioka RS, Souto Borges AL, Mendes Tribst JP. Influence of the dental implant number and load direction on stress distribution in a 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Dent Med Probl. 2021;58(1):69–74. doi:10.17219/dmp/130847
  27. Abarno S, Gehrke AF, Dedavid BA, Gehrke SA. Stress distribution around dental implants, generated by six different ceramic materials for unitary restoration: An experimental photoelastic study. Dent Med Probl. 2021;58(4):453–461. doi:10.17219/dmp/135997
  28. Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, et al. Brånemark Novum: A new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(1):2–16. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00086.x
  29. Sommer M, Zimmermann J, Grize L, Stübinger S. Marginal bone loss one year after implantation: A systematic review of different loading protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(1):121–134. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.965
  30. Javed F, Romanos GE. The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. J Dent. 2010;38(8):612–620. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.05.013
  31. Suarez F, Chan HL, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Effect of the timing of restoration on implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review. J Periodontol. 2013;84(2):159–169. doi:10.1902/jop.2012.120099
  32. do Carmo Filho LC, Marcello-Machado RM, de Castilhos ED, Del Bel Cury AA, Faot F. Can implant surfaces affect implant stability during osseointegration? A randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e110. doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0110
  33. Bassir SH, El Kholy K, Chen CY, Lee KH, Intini G. Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2019;90(5):493-506. doi:10.1002/JPER.18-0338
  34. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(1):527–551. doi:10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-2-.x
  35. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62(5):567–572. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4
  36. Linkevičius T. Zero Bone Loss Concepts. 1st ed. New Malden, UK: Quintessence Publishing; 2019.
  37. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: A 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(4):712–719. PMID:19885413.
  38. Ercoli C, Jammal G, Buyers M, et al. Influence of apico-coronal implant placement on post-surgical crestal bone loss in humans. J Periodontol. 2017;88(8):762–770. doi:10.1902/jop.2017.160802
  39. Puzio M, Hadzik J, Błaszczyszyn A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. Soft tissue augmentation around dental implants with connective tissue graft (CTG) and xenogenic collagen matrix (XCM). 1-year randomized control trail. Ann Anat. 2020;230:151484. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2020.151484
  40. Wennström JL, Derks J. Is there a need for keratinized mucosa around implants to maintain health and tissue stability? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):136–146. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02540.x
  41. Maney P, Schiavo JH, Mascarenhas F, Dragonas P. Risk factors for peri-implantitis. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2020;7(3):234–248. doi:10.1007/s40496-020-00276-0
  42. Bornstein MM, Hart CN, Halbritter SA, Morton D, Buser D. Early loading of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sand-blasted and acid-etched surface: 6-month results of a prospective case series study in the posterior mandible focusing on peri-implant crestal bone changes and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11(4):338–347. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00148.x
  43. Makowiecki A, Hadzik J, Błaszczyszyn A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. An evaluation of superhydrophilic surfaces of dental implants – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:79. doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0767-8
  44. Addy M, Bates JF. Plaque accumulation following the wearing of different types of removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 1979;6(2):111–117. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.1979.tb01271.x
  45. Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, et al. Prosthetic abutment height is a key factor in peri-implant marginal bone loss. J Dent Res. 2014;93(7 Suppl):80S–85S. doi:10.1177/0022034513519800
  46. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):163–201. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x
  47. Chitumalla R, Halini Kumari KV, Mohapatra A, Parihar AS, Anand KS, Katragadda P. Assessment of survival rate of dental implants in patients with bruxism: A 5-year retrospective study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 2):S278–S282. doi:10.4103/ccd.ccd_258_18
  48. Mumcu E, Beklen A. The effect of smoking on the marginal bone loss around implant-supported prostheses. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17:43. doi:10.18332/tid/109279
  49. Krennmair S, Hunger S, Forstner T, Malek M, Krennmair G, Stimmelmayr M. Implant health and factors affecting peri-implant marginal bone alteration for implants placed in staged maxillary sinus augmentation: A 5-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(1):32–41. doi:10.1111/cid.12684
  50. Stacchi C, Troiano G, Rapani A, et al. Factors influencing the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants inserted in augmented maxillary sinuses: A multicenter cross-sectional study. J Periodontol. 2021;92(8):1117–1125. doi:10.1002/JPER.20-0483
  51. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Diabetes and oral implant failure: A systematic review. J Dent Res. 2014;93(9):859–867. doi:10.1177/0022034514538820
  52. Gapski R, Wang HL, Mascarenhas P, Lang NP. Critical review of immediate implant loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(5):515–527. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00950.x
  53. Ragucci GM, Giralt-Hernando M, Méndez-Manjón I, Cantó-Navés O, Hernández-Alfaro F. Factors affecting implant failure and marginal bone loss of implants placed by post-graduate students: A 1-year prospective cohort study. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(20):4511. doi:10.3390/ma13204511
  54. Hadzik J, Krawiec M, Sławecki K, Kunert-Keil C, Dominiak M, Gedrange T. The influence of the crown–implant ratio on the crestal bone level and implant secondary stability: 36-month clinical study. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:4246874. doi:10.1155/2018/4246874
  55. Güven SS, Cabbar F, Güler N. Local and systemic factors associated with marginal bone loss around dental implants: A retrospective clinical study. Quintessence Int. 2020;51(2):128–141. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a42950
  56. Hadzik J, Krawiec M, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Prylińska-Czyżewska A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. Short implants and conventional implants in the residual maxillary alveolar ridge: A 36-month follow-up observation. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:5645–5652. doi:10.12659/MSM.910404
  57. Nandal S, Ghalaut P, Shekhawat H. A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: An in-vivo study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2014;5(2):126–137. doi:10.4103/0975-5950.154813
  58. Liu W, Cai H, Zhang J, Wang J, Sui L. Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):122. doi:10.1186/s12903-021-01486-3
  59. Chen J, Cai M, Yang J, Aldhohran T, Wang Y. Immediate versus early or conventional loading dental implants with fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):516–536. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.013
  60. Pigozzo MN, da Costa TR, Sesma N, Laganá DC. Immediate versus early loading of single dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(1):25–34. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.12.006
  61. Benic GI, Mir-Mari J, Hämmerle CH. Loading protocols for single-implant crowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:222–238. doi:10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g4.1
  62. De Smet E, Duyck J, Vander Sloten J, Jacobs R, Naert I. Timing of loading – immediate, early, or delayed – in the outcome of implants in the edentulous mandible: A prospective clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(4):580–594. PMID:17929519.
  63. Kawai Y, Taylor JA. Effect of loading time on the success of complete mandibular titanium implant retained overdentures: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(4):399–408. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01376.x
  64. Aires I, Berger J. Immediate placement in extraction sites followed by immediate loading: A pilot study and case presentation. Implant Dent. 2002;11(1):87–94. doi:10.1097/00008505-200201000-00020
  65. Sanz-Sánchez I, Sanz-Martín I, Figuero E, Sanz M. Clinical efficacy of immediate implant loading protocols compared to conventional loading depending on the type of the restoration: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(8):964–982. doi:10.1111/clr.12428