Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants

Our understanding of implant science has advanced from the ground-breaking work of Brnemark and Schroeder describing osseointegration in the 1970s to the more recent digital developments in implant dentistry. In a similar vein, evaluation of dental implant outcomes has advanced significantly.

In the past two decades, patients’ perceptions of the success of implant therapy have drawn a lot of attention. PROMs, or patient-reported outcome measures, are a general term for the patients’ perspective.

From the patients’ perspective, immediate implant placement and loading in single tooth edentulous spaces appears to be a well-accepted treatment option and is deserving of consideration in clinical practice. However, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about which loading protocol—immediate or early/conventional—should be preferred based on PROMs due to the paucity of comparative data.

References

Huynh-Ba, G,  Oates, TW,  Williams, MAH.  Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from the patients’ perspective: A systematic review. Clin Oral Impl Res.  2018; 29(Suppl. 16): 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13278

Atieh, M. A., Payne, A. G., Duncan, W. J., de Silva, R. K., & Cullinan, M. P. (2010). Immediate placement or immediate restoration/loading of single implants for molar tooth replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants,  25,  401–415.

Belser, U. C., Grutter, L., Vailati, F., Bornstein, M. M., Weber, H. P., & Buser, D. (2009). Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: A cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. Journal of Periodontology, 80,  140–151. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080435