Clinical efficacy of anodized dental implants for implant-supported prostheses after different loading protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES To summarize the clinical performance of anodized implants connected to different prostheses design after immediate/early (IL) or conventional loading (CL) protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven databases were surveyed for randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Studies comparing IL vs. CL protocol of anodized implants supporting single crown, fixed partial denture (FPD), full-arch fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), or overdenture were included. Risk-of-bias was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration tools. Meta-analyses for different follow-up were analyzed, followed by heterogeneity source assessment and GRADE approach. The outcomes included implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability quotient (ISQ), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and peri-implantitis prevalence. RESULTS From 24 eligible studies, 22 were included for quantitative evaluation. Most RCTs (58%, n = 11) and all the 5 CCTs had high and serious risk-of-bias, respectively. Overall, pooling all prosthesis design, no difference between IL vs. CL protocols was observed for all outcomes (p > .05). However, according to prosthesis type subgroups, CL reduced MBL for full-arch FDP (p < .05). In a point-in-time assessment, with overdenture, although IL presented higher PI (12 months), it showed lower MBL (≥24 months), higher ISQ (3 months), and lower PD (6 and 12 months) (p < .05). Conversely, PD was higher for IL in single crown (3 and 6 months) (p < .05). Regarding MBL, IL demonstrated higher mean difference for full-arch FDP (36 months) and FPD (12 and 36 months) (p < .05). CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study, overall, there is no significant difference in the outcomes between IL and CL loading protocols.