Browse > Article

Conventional loading, is the concept still useful?  

Yeo, In-Sung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of the Korean dental association / v.51, no.4, 2013 , pp. 204-209 More about this Journal
Abstract
Implant-supported restorations were connected to commercially pure titanium endosteal implants 3 months in mandible and 6 months in maxilla after the implants were inserted into patient jaws. Modifications of titanium implant surfaces have reduced the waiting time for osseointegration, resulting in the development of the early loading concept, which is defined at present as a restoration in contact with the opposing dentition and placed at least 1 week after implant placement, but no later than 2 months afterward. Nowadays, immediate loading protocols have also been introduced, using the implants that are designed to enhance initial stability. Immediate loading eliminates the edentulous period of a patient. Although dentists widely accept these concepts of early and immediate loading, they agree the conventional loading concept is still necessary, which describes loading protocols later than 2 months after implant insertion. The timing of loading is determined mainly by the factors of a patient. This paper considers for what dental clinicians should be careful in implant-supported restoration procedures, considering the implant late failure.
Keywords
Early loading; Immediate loading; Conventional loading; Implant; Implant-supported;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Moon SJ, Kim HJ, Son MK, Chung CH. Sinking and fit of abutment of locking taper implant system. J Adv Prosthodont 2009; 1 :97-101.   DOI
2 Isidor F. Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:1-9.   DOI
3 Weber HP, Morton D, Gallucci GO, Roccuzzo M, Cordaro L, Grutter L. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding loading protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 Suppl: 180-183.
4 Sakka S, Baroudi K, Nassani MZ. Factors associated with early and late failure of dental implants. J Investig Clin Dent 2012;3:258-261.   DOI
5 Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-152.   DOI
6 Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Schmid B, Weigel C, Gerber S, Bosshardt DD, Jonsson J, Lang NP, Jonsson J. Does excessive occlusal load affect osseointegra tion? An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15 :259-268.   DOI
7 Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontal 2000;71 :1412-24.   DOI
8 Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontal 2001 ; 72: 1372-83.   DOI
9 Rasmusson L, Roos J, Bystedt H. A 10-year followup study of titanium dioxide-blasted implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7:36-42.   DOI
10 Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:290-298.   DOI
11 Ricomini Filho AP, Fernandes FS, Straioto FG, da Silva WJ, Del Bel Cury AA. Preload loss and bacterial penetration on different implantabutment connection systems. Braz Dent J 2010;21: 123-129.   DOI