Autogenous graft versus collagen matrices for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review is to compare autogenous soft tissue grafts (connective tissue graft - CTG and free gingival graft-FGG) with different type of matrices (acellular dermal matrix-ADM, xenograft collagen matrix-XCM, volume-stable collagen matrix-VCMX) used to increase peri-implant soft tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search on electronic databases was performed to identify randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and CCTs, respectively) with either parallel or split-mouth design, and treating ≥ 10 patients. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare different matrices. Soft tissue thickness dimensional changes and keratinized width (KMW) changes were the primary outcome measures. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate: a) PROMs; b) volumetric changes; c) surgical operating time; and d) different periodontal measurements. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 16 studies (11 RCTs and 5 CCTs) in the quantitative analysis. A total of N = 573 sites were evaluated for NMA. CTG resulted the best material for increasing peri-implant soft tissue thickness, at 180 and 360 days after surgery. The use of an ADM showed good results for buccal thickness increase, primarily in the first three months after surgery. Vestibuloplasty + FGG resulted in the most effective technique for peri-implant KMW augmentation, after 180 days. CONCLUSIONS: While CTG demonstrated better performance in all the comparison and FGG showed to be the best graft to increase keratinized mucosa up to 90 days, ADM and VCMX may be used to increase soft tissue horizontal thickness with lower patients' morbidity. LIMITATIONS: The limits of this NMA are the following: a) limited number of included studies; b) high heterogeneity among them (number of patients, treatment sites, surgical techniques, outcome measures, and follow-ups). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many studies compared the efficacy of autogenous and non-autogenous grafts in terms of gingival thickness, volume, and keratinized width increase. However, there is still not clear overall evidence on this topic. This NMA helps clinicians to choose the right material in different peri-implant soft tissue procedures. Recommendations for future studies are mandatory.

Do soft tissue augmentation techniques provide stable and favorable peri-implant conditions in the medium and long term? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the available literature on the medium- and long-term effects of soft tissue augmentation (STA) at implant sites and to explore the effects of the different approaches on clinical-, patient-reported, and health-related parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify prospective clinical studies that assessed the medium- and long-term (≥36 months) outcomes following STA, including number of sites maintaining peri-implant health and number of sites developing peri-implant disease, incidence of complications, stability of the clinical, volumetric, and radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis. STA was performed with either a bilaminar- or an apically positioned flap (APF) approach, in combination with autogenous grafts (free gingival graft [FGG] and connective tissue graft [CTG]) or substitutes (acellular dermal matrix [ADM] and xenogeneic cross-linked collagen matrix [CCM]). An overall high survival rate was observed. Most of the augmented implant sites maintained peri-implant health in the medium and long term, with the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis ranging from 0% to 50% and from 0% to 7.14%, respectively. The position of the soft tissue margin following APF + FGG and bilaminar approaches involving CTG or CCM was found to be stable over time. No substantial changes were reported for plaque score/index, bleeding on probing/bleeding index, and probing depth between early time points and following visits. CTG-based STA procedures resulted in a stable or increased dimension of keratinized mucosa width (KMW) and mucosal thickness (MT)/volumetric outcomes over time, when compared with early follow-ups. Most of the included studies described stable marginal bone levels at the grafted implant sites over time. No substantial changes for patient-reported outcomes and professionally assessed esthetic results were reported at different time points. CONCLUSIONS: Implants that received STA showed overall high survival rate and relatively low incidence of peri-implantitis in the medium and long term. Augmented sites seem to maintain the level of soft tissue margin and marginal bone over time, while non-augmented implants may exhibit apical shift of the soft tissue margin. The overall favorable early outcomes obtained with STA are maintained in the medium and long term, with an increase in KMW and MT that may be expected over time at CTG-augmented sites.

Clinical efficacy of Lactobacillus reuteri-containing lozenges in the supportive therapy of generalized periodontitis stage III and IV, grade C: 1-year results of a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 12-month mono-centre double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of Lactobacillus reuteri-containing lozenges during the supportive therapy of generalized periodontitis stage III and IV, grade C (GPIII-IVC) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty treated GPIII-IVC patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The test group received two 3-month-long administrations of L. reuteri (2 lozenges/day after brushing) with a 3-month washout period, while the control one received a placebo. Outcome measures were tooth survival, complications and adverse events, change in probing pockets depth (PPD), change in probing attachment level (PAL), presence of bleeding on probing (BOP) and patient's evaluation of treatment. Measurements were collected at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: At 1 year, no dropout, tooth loss, complications or adverse event were recorded. Mean PPD and mean PAL and percentages of sites with BOP were statistically improved (p < 0.05) compared with baseline in both groups, while more PPD reduction at all time points (p < 0.05) and more PAL gain at 6 months and more BOP reduction at 6 and 9 months were found in the probiotic group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of the study, the use of L. reuteri probiotics lozenges improved some clinical outcomes in treated GPIII-IVC patients during maintenance therapy. Studies with a larger number of patients are needed to confirm these data. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of L. reuteri probiotic lozenges could be considered as an adjunct in the maintenance therapy of GPIII-IVC patients.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement.

BACKGROUND: Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a 1-stage implant placement procedure is as effective as a 2-stage procedure. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an Internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 21 January 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of osseointegrated dental implants comparing the same dental implants placed according to 1- versus 2-stage procedures with a minimum follow up of 6 months after loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, patient preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by dentists, and complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs were identified and included reporting data on 239 patients in total. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, the meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, though trends, especially in fully edentulous patients, favoured 2-stage (submerged) implants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients included in the trials was too small to draw definitive conclusions. The 1-stage approach might be preferable in partially edentulous patients since it avoids one surgical intervention and shortens treatment times, while a 2-stage submerged approach could be indicated when an implant has not obtained an optimal primary stability or when barriers are used for guided tissue regeneration, or when it is expected that removable temporary prostheses could transmit excessive forces on the penetrating abutments especially in fully edentulous patients.

Evaluation of resistance against bacterial microleakage of a new conical implant-abutment connection versus conventional connections: an in vitro study.

The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate bacterial microleakage from inside to outside the implant-abutment assembly in a new design of internal conical connection compared to eight different internal connections. The design of this connection should prevent or limit microbiologic leakage into the surrounding implant tissue, that could contribute to infections without bone loss (mucositis) or with bone loss (peri-implantits). In order to investigate bacterial microleakage, the inner part of each system was inoculated with an Escherichia coli suspension. Eight different groups were considered; each group was composed of 10 dental implants, for a total of 80 implants. Groups 1-7 were considered controls, while group 8 was the test connection (an internal connection characterized by a double taper principle). Results showed that in control implants (Group 1 to 7), little microleakage was observed after the first 6 hours (500 CFU/ µl) and, after 24 hours of incubation, they showed a significant bacterial contamination in all samples (>100.000 CFU/ µl). In group 8 (test connection) no contamination was found in the first 6 hours, with 7 out of 10 implants showing no contamination even after 96 hours. Statistically significant differences were found between Group 8 and the other groups (p<0.05), whereas no significant differences were found among implants of the control groups (from group 1 to 7). Within the limits of the present study, the new connection studied presented significantly less microleakage at 96 h in comparison with the other control internal connections.

Systematic review of some prosthetic risk factors for periimplantitis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The recent literature underlines a correlation between plaque and the development of periimplantitis but neglects the importance of the prosthetic factors. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the available literature to evaluate the role played by cement excess and misfitting components on the development of periimplantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search restricted to the English language was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register up to September 1, 2014, based on a selected search algorithm. Only cohort studies and case-control studies were included without additional restrictions. The presence of periimplantitis and implant failure were considered primary and secondary outcome variables. RESULTS: The search produced 275 potentially relevant titles, of which only 2 were found eligible. They showed a correlation in cemented implant prostheses between cement excess and the presence of periimplant disease, especially in patients with a history of periodontal disease. After cement excess removal by means of debridement, disease symptoms disappeared around most of the implants. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific articles on prosthetic risk factors for periimplantitis are scarce. Although the studies found on cement remnants have a high risk for bias, cement excess seems to be associated with mucositis and possibly with periimplantitis, especially in patients with a history of periodontal disease.

Indications for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla: A multidisciplinary consensus among experts in the field utilising the modified Delphi method.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus-driven guidelines that could support the clinical decision-making process for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla and ultimately improve long-term treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 33 participants were enrolled (18 active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration and 15 international experts). Based on the available evidence, the development group discussed and proposed an initial list of 20 statements, which were later evalu-ated by all participants. After the forms were completed, the responses were sent for blinded ana-lysis. In most cases, when a consensus was not reached, the statements were rephrased and sent to the participants for another round of evaluation. Three rounds were planned. RESULTS: After the first round of voting, participants came close to reaching a consensus on six statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other fourteen. Following this, nineteen statements were rephrased and sent to participants again for the second round of voting, after which a consensus was reached for six statements and almost reached for three statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other ten. All 13 statements upon which no consensus was reached were rephrased and included in the third round. After this round, a consensus was achieved for an additional nine statements and almost achieved for three statements, but no consensus was reached for the remaining statement. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus highlights the importance of accurate preoperative planning, taking into consideration the maxillomandibular relationship to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of the final restoration. Emphasis is placed on the role played by the sinus bony walls and floor in providing essential elements for bone formation, and on evaluation of bucco-palatal sinus width for choosing between lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. Tilted and trans-sinus implants are considered viable options, whereas caution is advised when placing pterygoid implants. Zygomatic implants are seen as a potential option in specific cases, such as for completely edentulous elderly or oncological patients, for whom conventional alternatives are unsuitable.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications.

BACKGROUND: Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat, and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis; with reduced host-response; when surgery is performed in infected sites; in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions; and when large foreign materials are implanted. A variety of prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimise infections after dental implant placement. More recent protocols recommended short-term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. Adverse events may occur with the administration of antibiotics, and can range from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic or placebo administration and, if antibiotics are beneficial, to determine which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). There were no language or date restrictions placed on the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least three months, that compared the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to people undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures included prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the risk of bias of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) using a random-effects model for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity, including both clinical and methodological factors, was to be investigated. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs with 1162 participants were included: three trials compared 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (927 participants), one compared 3 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (55 participants), one compared 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg four times a day for two days versus no antibiotics (80 participants), and one compared four groups: (1) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin; (2) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 1 g twice a day for seven days; (3) 1 g of postoperative amoxicillin twice a day for seven days, and (4) no antibiotics (100 participants). The overall body of evidence was considered to be of moderate quality. The meta-analyses of the six trials showed a statistically significant higher number of participants experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67, P value 0.002, heterogeneity: Tau(2) 0.00; Chi(2) 2.87, df = 5 (P value 0.57); I(2) 0%). The number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one person having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 14 to 100), based on an implant failure rate of 6% in participants not receiving antibiotics. There was borderline statistical significance for prosthesis failures (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), with no statistically significant differences for infections (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35), or adverse events (RR 1; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.85) (only two minor adverse events were recorded, one in the placebo group). No conclusive information can be derived from the only trial that compared three different durations of antibiotic prophylaxis since no event (implant/prosthesis failures, infections or adverse events) occurred in any of the 25 participants included in each study group. There were no trials that evaluated different antibiotics or different antibiotic dosages. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Scientific evidence suggests that, in general, antibiotics are beneficial for reducing failure of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. Specifically 2 g or 3 g of amoxicillin given orally, as a single administration, one hour preoperatively significantly reduces failure of dental implants. No significant adverse events were reported. It might be sensible to suggest the use of a single dose of 2 g prophylactic amoxicillin prior to dental implant placement. It is still unknown whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which antibiotic is the most effective.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To minimise the risk of implant failures after their placement, dental implants are kept load-free for 3 to 8 months to establish osseointegration (conventional loading). It would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardising implant success. Nowadays implants are loaded early and even immediately and it would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately and early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of (1) immediate (within 1 week), early (between 1 week and 2 months), and conventional (after 2 months) loading of osseointegrated implants; (2) immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading and early occlusal versus non-occlusal loading; (3) direct loading versus progressive loading immediately, early and conventionally. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 8 June 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 June 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 June 2012). Authors of identified trials were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants, having a follow-up of 4 months to 1 year, comparing the same implant type immediately, early or conventionally loaded, occlusally or non-occlusally loaded, or progressively loaded or not. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures and radiographic marginal bone level changes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by at least two review authors. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Risk of bias was assessed for each trial by at least two review authors, and data were extracted independently, and in duplicate. Results were combined using fixed-effect models with mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A summary of findings table of the main findings was constructed. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs were identified and, from these, 26 trials including a total of 1217 participants and 2120 implants were included. Three trials were at low risk of bias, 12 were at high risk of bias and for the remaining 11 the risk of bias was unclear. In nine of the included studies there were no prosthetic failures within the first year, with no implant failures in 7 studies and the mean rate of implant failure in all 26 trials was a low 2.5%. From 15 RCTs comparing immediate with convential loading there was no evidence of a difference in either prosthesis failure (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.70 to 5.01; 8 trials) or implant failure (RR 1.65; 95% CI 0.68 to 3.98; 10 trials) in the first year, but there is some evidence of a small reduction in bone loss favouring immediate loading (MD -0.10 mm; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01; P = 0.03; 9 trials), with some heterogeneity (Tau² = 0.01; Chi² = 14.37, df = 8 (P = 0.07); I² = 44%). However, this very small difference may not be clinically important. From three RCTs which compared early loading with conventional loading, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. Six RCTs compared immediate and early loading and found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. From the two trials which compared occlusal loading with non-occlusal loading there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a clinically important difference in the outcomes of prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. We did not identify any trials which evaluated progressive loading of implants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall there was no convincing evidence of a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure, or bone loss associated with different loading times of implants. More well-designed RCTs are needed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri-implantitis.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (peri-implantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for peri-implantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective interventions for treating peri-implantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 dental implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 9 June 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs comparing agents or interventions for treating peri-implantitis around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen eligible trials were identified, but six were excluded. The following interventions were compared in the nine included studies: different non-surgical interventions (five trials); adjunctive treatments to non-surgical interventions (one trial); different surgical interventions (two trials); adjunctive treatments to surgical interventions (one trial). Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 4 years. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Statistically significant differences were observed in two small single trials judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias. After 4 months, adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who lost at least 50% of the bone around implants showed improved mean probing attachment levels (PAL) of 0.61 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.82) and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). After 4 years, patients with peri-implant infrabony defects > 3 mm treated with Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers gained 1.4 mm more PAL (95% CI 0.24 to 2.56) and 1.4 mm PPD (95% CI 0.81 to 1.99) than patients treated with a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating peri-implantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective.A single small trial at unclear risk of bias showed the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients affected by severe forms of peri-implantitis. Another small single trial at high risk of bias showed that after 4 years, improved PAL and PPD of about 1.4 mm were obtained when using Bio-Oss with resorbable barriers compared to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in peri-implant infrabony defects. There is no evidence from four trials that the more complex and expensive therapies were more beneficial than the control therapies which basically consisted of simple subgingival mechanical debridement. Follow-up longer than 1 year suggested recurrence of peri-implantitis in up to 100% of the treated cases for some of the tested interventions. As this can be a chronic disease, re-treatment may be necessary. Larger well-designed RCTs with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are usually placed by elevating a soft tissue flap, but in some instances, they can also be placed flapless reducing patient discomfort. Several flap designs and suturing techniques have been proposed. Soft tissues are often manipulated and augmented for aesthetic reasons. It is often recommended that implants are surrounded by a sufficient width of attached/keratinised mucosa to improve their long-term prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1a) flapless procedures are beneficial for patients, and (1b) which is the ideal flap design; whether (2a) soft tissue correction/augmentation techniques are beneficial for patients, and (2b) which are the best techniques; whether (3a) techniques to increase the peri-implant keratinised mucosa are beneficial for patients, and (3b) which are the best techniques; and (4) which are the best suturing techniques/materials. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 9 June 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 9 June 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 9 June 2011). Several dental journals were handsearched. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of root-form osseointegrated dental implants, with a follow-up of at least 6 months after function, comparing various techniques to handle soft tissues in relation to dental implants. Outcome measures, according to the different hypotheses, were: prosthetic and implant failures, biological complications, aesthetics evaluated by patients and dentists, postoperative pain, marginal peri-implant bone level changes on periapical radiographs, patient preference, ease of maintenance by patient, soft tissue thickness changes and attached/keratinised mucosa height changes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted at least in duplicate and independently by two or more review authors. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed using risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen potentially eligible RCTs were identified but only six trials with 138 patients in total could be included. One study was at low risk of bias, two studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk of bias. Two trials (56 patients) compared flapless placement of dental implants with conventional flap elevation, one trial (10 patients) compared crestal versus vestibular incisions, one trial (20 patients) Erbium:YAG laser versus flap elevation at the second-stage surgery for implant exposure, one split-mouth trial (10 patients) evaluated whether connective tissue graft at implant placement could be effective in augmenting peri-implant tissues, and one trial (40 patients) compared autograft with an animal-derived collagen matrix to increase the height of the keratinised mucosa. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, implants placed with a flapless technique and implant exposures performed with laser induced statistically significantly less postoperative pain than flap elevation. Sites augmented with soft tissues connective grafts showed a better aesthetic and thicker tissues. Both palatal autografts or the use of a porcine-derived collagen matrix are effective in increasing the height of keratinised mucosa at the price of a 0.5 mm recession of peri-implant soft tissues. There were no other statistically significant differences for any of the remaining analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited weak evidence suggesting that flapless implant placement is feasible and has been shown to reduce patient postoperative discomfort in adequately selected patients, that augmentation at implant sites with soft tissue grafts is effective in increasing soft tissue thickness improving aesthetics and that one technique to increase the height of keratinised mucosa using autografts or an animal-derived collagen matrix was able to achieve its goal but at the price of a worsened aesthetic outcome (0.5 mm of recession). There is insufficient reliable evidence to provide recommendations on which is the ideal flap design, the best soft tissue augmentation technique, whether techniques to increase the width of keratinised/attached mucosa are beneficial to patients or not, and which are the best incision/suture techniques/materials. Properly designed and conducted RCTs, with at least 6 months of follow-up, are needed to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Antibiotics as Adjunctive Therapy in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The role of antibiotics as adjunctive therapy in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess the efficacy of antibiotic therapy, local or systemic, as an adjunctive to the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Primary outcomes were: implant success rate and complications, changes in radiographic bone level, probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and peri-implantitis resolution. Six studies were included: two using topical and four systemic antibiotics. Adjunctive local antibiotics improved PPD (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78), BOP (MD = 0.15% (95% CI 0.10, 0.19)) and the success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84). No significant difference in bone level and success rate were found with the use of systemic antibiotics, although they appeared to improve PPD (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and PAL (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive local antibiotics showed improved outcomes in terms of success rate, PPD and BOP, while adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved PPD and PAL only. Peri-implantitis resolution was about 20-30% using adjunctive local antibiotics, whilst it ranged from 2% to 65% with adjunctive systemic antibiotics. Findings are still controversial, since they are based on few studies with high heterogeneity, at the uncertain or high risk of bias and involve few patients. Non-surgical debridement and maintenance periodontal support therapy remain pivotal and the adjunctive use of antibiotics for peri-implantitis cannot be routinely recommended, even considering the increasing concern on antibiotic resistance.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and recovering soft tissue health around dental implants.

BACKGROUND: It is important to institute an effective supportive therapy to maintain or recover soft tissue health around dental implants. Different maintenance regimens have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different interventions for 1) maintaining and 2) recovering soft tissue health around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and to an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 2 June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or recovering healthy tissues around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using standardised mean differences for continuous data and risk ratios for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials compared interventions for maintaining soft tissue health around implants and a further six trials compared interventions to recover soft tissue health where there was evidence of peri-implant mucositis. No statistically significant differences were found between the effectiveness of powered versus manual toothbrushes for either maintaining or recovering soft tissue health. There was no statistically significant difference found between different types of self administered antimicrobials for maintaining soft tissue health (hyaluronic acid gel compared to chlorhexidine gel, amine fluoride/stannous fluoride mouthwash compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash) and triclosan dentifrice compared to sodium fluoride dentifrice showed no statistically significant difference in recovering soft tissue health. However chlorhexidine irrigation was more effective in reducing plaque and marginal bleeding scores compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash and Listerine mouthwash was found to be statistically significantly better than placebo with regard to reducing mean plaque scores and marginal bleeding scores. When interventions administered by dental professional were compared there was no statistically significant difference found between chlorhexidine and physiologic solutions as irrigants at second stage surgery to maintain health of soft tissues. In patients with peri-implant mucositis two trials evaluated interventions performed by dental professionals. There was no statistically significant difference between mechanical debridement followed by either minocycline or chlorhexidine gel, or between debridement with a titanium curette compared to an ultrasonic debridement tool. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was only low quality evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining or recovering health of peri-implant soft tissues. The included RCTs had short follow-up periods and few subjects and although overall the risk of bias of the studies was either low or unclear, only single trials were available for each outcome. There was no reliable evidence as to which regimens are most effective for long term maintenance. This should not be interpreted as meaning that current maintenance regimens are ineffective. There was weak evidence that antibacterial mouthrinses are effective in reducing plaque and marginal bleeding around implants. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials powered to find possible differences, using primary outcome measures and with much longer follow up. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants).

BACKGROUND: 'Immediate' implants are placed in dental sockets just after tooth extraction. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The potential advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone volumes might be partially maintained thus possibly providing good aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures. After implant placement in postextractive sites, gaps can be present between the implant and the bony walls. It is possible to fill these gaps and to augment bone simultaneously to implant placement. There are many techniques to achieve this but it is unclear when augmentation is needed and which could be the best augmentation technique. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate success, complications, aesthetics and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants.To evaluate whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary and which is the most effective technique. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 2 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 - 2 June 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 - 2 June 2010) were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, or comparing various bone augmentation procedures around the inserted implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen eligible RCTs were identified but only seven trials could be included. Four RCTs evaluated implant placement timing. Two RCTs compared immediate versus delayed implants in 126 patients and found no statistically significant differences. One RCT compared immediate-delayed versus delayed implants in 46 patients. After 2 years patients in the immediate-delayed group perceived the time to functional loading significantly shorter, were more satisfied and independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate (RR = 1.68; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.72). These differences disappeared 5 years after loading but significantly more complications occurred in the immediate-delayed group (RR = 4.20; 95% CI 1.01 to 17.43). One RCT compared immediate with immediately delayed implants in 16 patients for 2 years and found no differences. Three RCTs evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants immediately placed in extraction sockets. No statistically significant difference was observed when evaluating whether autogenous bone is needed in postextractive sites (1 trial with 26 patients) or which was the most effective augmentation technique (2 trials with 56 patients). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine possible advantages or disadvantages of immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants, therefore these preliminary conclusions are based on few underpowered trials often judged to be at high risk of bias. There is a suggestion that immediate and immediate-delayed implants may be at higher risks of implant failures and complications than delayed implants on the other hand the aesthetic outcome might be better when placing implants just after teeth extraction. There is not enough reliable evidence supporting or refuting the need for augmentation procedures at immediate implants placed in fresh extraction sockets or whether any of the augmentation techniques is superior to the others.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 dental implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 7th January 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve eligible trials were identified, but five were excluded. The following procedures were tested: (1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; (2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; (3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; (4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; (5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening; and (6) nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite versus Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 4 years. The only statistically significant differences were observed in two trials judged to be at high risk of bias. After 4 months, adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who lost at least 50% of the bone around implants showed improved mean probing attachment levels (PAL) of 0.61 mm and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) of 0.59 mm. After 4 years, patients with perimplant infrabony defects > 3 mm treated with Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers gained 1.4 mm more PAL and PPD than patients treated with a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very little reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. The use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients affected by severe forms of perimplantitis. After 4 years, improved PAL and PPD of about 1.4 mm were obtained when using Bio-Oss with resorbable barriers compared to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in perimplant infrabony defects. In four trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve similar results to the more complex and expensive therapies. Follow-up longer than 1 year suggested recurrence of perimplantitis up to 100% of the treated cases for some of the tested interventions. Sample sizes were very small and follow-up too short, therefore these findings have to be considered with great caution. Larger well-designed RCTs with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications.

BACKGROUND: Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host-response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimise infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and, if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 2nd June 2010. Several dental journals were handsearched. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs were identified: three comparing 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (927 patients) and the other comparing 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg 4 times a day for 2 days versus no antibiotics (80 patients). The meta-analyses of the four trials showed a statistically significant higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics: RR = 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.84). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 33 (95% CI 17 to 100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 5% in patients not receiving antibiotics. The other outcomes were not statistically significant, and only two minor adverse events were recorded, one in the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence suggesting that 2 g of amoxicillin given orally 1 hour preoperatively significantly reduce failures of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. No significant adverse events were reported. It might be sensible to suggest the use of a single dose of 2 g prophylactic amoxicillin prior to dental implant placement. It is still unknown whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which is the most effective antibiotic.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant-supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the sinus cavity with autogenous bone and/or commercially available biomaterials. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether and when augmentation of the maxillary sinus are necessary and which are the most effective augmentation techniques for rehabilitating patients with implant-supported prostheses. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched on 7th January 2010. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting the maxillary sinus for rehabilitation with dental implants reporting the outcome of implant success/failure at least to abutment connection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs out of 29 met the inclusion criteria. One trial of 15 patients evaluated implants 5 mm long with 6 mm diameter as an alternative to sinus lift in bone with a residual height of 4 to 6 mm. Nine trials with 235 patients compared different sinus lift techniques; of these four trials (114 patients) evaluated the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Due to the variety of techniques evaluated, meta-analysis was only possible of use of PRP for implant failure (two trials) and complications (three trials). No statistically significant difference was observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions are based on few small trials, with short follow-up, and judged to be at high risk of bias. Therefore conclusions should be viewed as preliminary and interpreted with great caution. It is still unclear when sinus lift procedures are needed. 5 mm short implants can be successfully loaded in maxillary bone with a residual height of 4 to 6 mm but their long-term prognosis is unknown. Elevating the sinus lining in presence of 1 to 5 mm of residual bone height without the addition of a bone graft may be sufficient to regenerate new bone to allow rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses. Bone substitutes might be successfully used as replacements for autogenous bone. If the residual alveolar bone height is 3 to 6 mm a crestal approach to lift the sinus lining, to place 8 mm implants may lead to fewer complications than a lateral window approach, to place implants at least 10 mm long. There is no evidence that PRP treatment improves the clinical outcome of sinus lift procedures with autogenous bone or bone substitutes.

Clinical efficacy of a new fully piezoelectric technique for third molar root extraction without using manual tools: a clinical randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new technique fully based on the use of a piezoelectric device for third molar root extraction versus the conventional technique based on the use of manual and rotary instruments. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Patients referred to the hospital of Bolzano for third molar extraction were randomly divided into two groups and treated by two experienced oral surgeons. In the test group all the procedures were performed using piezoelectric instruments and a specially designed piezoelectric lever, whereas in the control group conventional manual and rotary instruments were used. The main outcome measure was patient's pain perception, and the secondary outcome measures were complications, duration of the surgical treatment, and soft tissue healing. The study had a 1-week follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty patients (23 females and 27 males) out of 90 were included in the study, and 100 third molars (50 maxillary and 50 mandibular) were extracted. All patients completed the expected follow-up. No differences were found between the two groups regarding patient's pain perception, complications, and soft tissue healing. However, the new piezoelectric extraction technique took less than half the time when compared to the conventional technique (4.6 ± 4.5 minutes versus 10.2 ± 13.1 minutes; P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: The new piezoelectric third molar root extraction technique allowed third molar extraction in less than one half the surgical time required by the traditional technique. The advantages seem to be more pronounced in difficult cases. However, both surgeons who performed the procedures were very experienced and all the patients were young. Therefore, caution should be given to the generalization of the results. Multicenter studies with a larger variety of patients are needed to confirm the promising results of this study.

Peri-implant Soft Tissue Management: Cairo Opinion Consensus Conference.

Peri-implant soft tissues play a role of paramount importance, not only on the esthetic appearance, but also on the maintenance and long-term stability of implants. The present report presents the conclusions from the Consensus Conference of the South European North African Middle Eastern Implantology & Modern Dentistry Association (SENAME) (4-6 November 2016, Cairo, Egypt). The conference focused on the topic of the soft tissue around dental implants, and in particular, on the influence of implant configurations on the marginal soft tissues, soft tissue alterations after immediate, early or delayed implant placement and immediate loading, the long-term outcomes of soft tissue stability around dental implants, and soft tissue augmentation around dental implants. Thirty world experts in this field were invited to take part in this two-day event; however, only 29 experts were in the final consensus voting process.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated dental implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediately and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles (lower jaws) of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of (1) immediate (within 1 week), early (between 1 week and 2 months), and conventional (after 2 months) loading of osseointegrated implants, and of (2) immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading during the bone healing phase. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an Internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 4 June 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants, having a follow up of 4 months to 1 year, comparing the same implant type immediately, early and conventionally loaded or occlusally and non-occlusally loaded. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures and radiographic marginal bone level changes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty RCTs were identified and 22 trials including 976 participants in total were included. Twelve trials compared immediate versus conventional loading, three early versus conventional loading, six immediate versus early loading, and one occlusally versus non-occlusally loaded implants. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to successfully load dental implants immediately or early after their placement in selected patients, though not all clinicians may achieve optimal results. It is unclear whether it is beneficial to avoid occlusal contacts during the osseointegration phase. Trends suggest that immediately loaded implants fail more often than those conventionally loaded, but less commonly than those loaded early. If a clinician wishes to load the implants early, it might be wiser to load them immediately (within 1 week) rather than waiting for 1 or 2 months. A high degree of primary implant stability (high value of insertion torque) seems to be one of the prerequisites for a successful immediate/early loading procedure. More well designed RCTs are needed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org/).