Immediate versus Non-immediate Loading Protocols for Reduced-diameter Implants Supporting Overdentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

作者：Ying Liu, Fengxiao He, Yaoyu Zhao, Quan Sun, Haibin Xia, Dahong Xia, Yi Bai · 发表于：The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants · 年份：2024 · DOI：10.11607/jomi.10625 · 被引用次数：7 · 研究领域：Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes、Bone health and osteoporosis research、Bone Tissue Engineering Materials

PURPOSE: To compare the influence of immediate loading (IL) and non-immediate loading (NIL) protocols on overdentures retained by reduced-diameter implants (≤ 3.5 mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes of immediately loaded and non-immediately loaded reduced-diameter implants supporting overdentures. The risk of bias within and across the studies and the certainty of evidence were assessed by RoB 2.0 and GRADE, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was performed by eliminating studies at high risk of bias and repeating the data synthesis employing the random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the implant diameter and the length of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, six RCTs with 255 patients were included in this systematic review. The meta-analyses found similar implant survival rates between immediately loaded and non-immediately loaded implants in the mini-implant (RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.95, 1.01; P = .12) and narrow-diameter implant subgroups (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.94, 1.03; P = .56) as well as in short-term (RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.97, 1.00; P = .11) and long-term (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.93, 1.01; P = .09) follow-up subgroups. Additionally, marginal bone loss (MBL) showed no statistically significant difference between the loadin...