Comparison of implant placement and loading protocols for single anterior maxillary implants: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

• Published in: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2024-07
• Main Authors: Qian, Xinyi, Vánkos, Boldizsár, Kelemen, Kata, Gede, Noémi, Varga, Gábor, Hegyi, Péter, Gerber, Gábor, Hermann, Péter, Joób-Fancsaly, Árpád, Mikulás, Krisztina
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0022-3913; 1097-6841; 1097-6841
• DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.05.033

With increasing esthetic needs, patients prefer missing anterior teeth to be restored as soon as possible, but how the timing of implantation and prosthetic loading influences peri-implant tissue and the esthetic results remains unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to investigate and rank the hard-tissue and soft-tissue outcomes, esthetics, and patient satisfaction of single maxillary implant placement and loading protocols. A systematic search was conducted to identify studies with at least a 1-year follow-up that compared different implant placement and loading protocols and reported on survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), soft tissue, and esthetics. A random effects model and a Bayesian approach were applied to compare protocols by using mean differences (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. A total of 43 articles were included, with a follow-up of 1 to 5 years. All protocols had high survival rates and no significant differences for 1-year or 2-year MBL. Immediate placement with immediate loading ranked first in pink and white esthetic scores and satisfaction and was statistically significantly better than immediate placement with delayed loading or late placement protocols in pink esthetic scores, where its advantage over late placement with late loading was also clinically relevant [MD: −1.74, CrI: −2.34 to −1.15]. Immediate implantation with immediate loading showed a considerable esthetic advantage over later rehabilitation, whereas only a slight difference in MBL resulted from different protocols.