Implant Placement and Loading Protocols

Implant placement protocols were defined as follows:

a. Immediate implant placement: Dental implants are placed in the socket on the same day as tooth extraction.

b. Early implant placement: Dental implants are placed with soft tissue healing (4–8 weeks) or with partial bone healing (12–16 weeks) after tooth extraction.

c. Late implant placement: Dental implants are placed after complete bone healing, more than 6 months after tooth extraction.

Implant loading protocols were defined as follows:

a. Immediate loading: Dental implants are connected to a prosthesis in occlusion with the opposing arch within 1 week subsequent to implant placement.

b. Immediate restoration: Dental implants are connected to a prosthesis held out of occlusion with the opposing arch within 1 week subsequent to implant placement.

c. Early loading: Dental implants are connected to the prosthesis between 1 week and 2 months after implant placement.

d. Conventional loading: Dental implants are allowed a healing period of more than 2 months after implant placement with no connection of the prosthesis.

Consensus Statement 1: Proposed classification for assessing implant placement timing and loading combinations allow comprehensive treatment selection

The newly proposed classification assessing both the timing of implant placement and loading combinations allows for comprehensive treatment selection.

Consensus Statement 2: Immediate placement with immediate loading, and immediate placement with early loading are clinically documented protocols while immediate placement with conventional loading is scientifically and clinically valid protocol

a. Type 1A (immediate placement plus immediate restoration/ loading) is a clinically documented protocol. The survival rate was 98% (median 100, range 87%–100%). b. Type 1B (immediate placement plus early loading) is a clinically documented protocol. The survival rate was 98% (median 100, range 93%–100%). c. Type 1C (immediate placement plus conventional loading) is a scientifically and clinically valid protocol. The survival rate was 96% (median 99, range 91%–100%).

Consensus Statement 3: Early placement with immediate loading, and early placement with early loading presents clinically insufficient documentation while early placement with conventional loading is scientifically and clinically valid protocol

Type 2-3A (early placement plus immediate restoration/loading) presents clinically insufficient documentation. b. Type 2-3B (early placement plus early loading) presents clinically insufficient documentation. c. Type 2-3C (early placement plus conventional loading) is a scientifically and clinically valid protocol. The survival rate was 96% (median 96, range 91%–100%).

Consensus Statement 4: Late placement with immediate loading is clinically documented protocol while late placement with early loading and late placement with conventional loading are both scientifically and clinically valid protocols.

Type 4A (late placement plus immediate restoration/loading) is a clinically documented protocol. The survival rate was 98% (median 99, range 83%–100%). b. Type 4B (late placement plus early loading) is a scientifically and clinically valid protocol. The survival rate was 98% (median 99, range 97%–100%). c. Type 4C (late placement plus conventional loading) is a scientifically and clinically valid protocol. The survival rate was 98% (median 100, range 95%–100%).

Consensus Statement 5: When considering placement and loading protocols, multiple factors can affect intended treatment outcome

When considering placement/loading protocols, there are factors that can prevent the accomplishing of the intended treatment. These factors include: a. Patient-related factors. b. Lack of primary stability. c. The need for bone augmentation.

1) Implant placement and loading protocol should be planned prior to tooth extraction

Treatment planning for implant therapy should commence once the indication for tooth extraction has been confirmed. Both the implant placement and loading protocol should be planned prior to tooth extraction. The selection of the implant placement and restoration/loading protocol should be based on achieving predictable outcomes: a. Long-term hard and soft tissue stability. b. Optimal aesthetics. c. Reduced risk for complications. d. Meet patient-specific and site-related criteria.

2) Alternative treatment modalities should be in place as part of the planning and consent process

As part of the planning and consent process, alternative treatment modalities should be in place, in the event that specific intra-operative procedural criteria are not met. Implant placement and restoration/loading protocols present with different levels of clinical difficulty and overall treatment risk. When selecting treatment modalities, clinician skill and experience should match the challenges associated with the selected protocol.

3) Patient-centered benefits of the different implant placement, loading protocols and associated risks should be considered

The implant placement and loading protocol can have a negative impact on survival and success of specific selection criteria are not met, and/or execution of the clinical procedure is of insufficient quality. Careful consideration of patient-centered benefits of the different implant placement and loading protocols and the associated risks should be taken into consideration.

4) Type 1A protocol should only be considered when there are patient-centered advantages

Immediate placement and immediate restoration/loading (type 1A) is a complex surgical and prosthodontic procedure and should only be performed by clinicians with a high level of clinical skill and experience. Type 1A protocol should only be considered when there are patient-centered advantages (e.g., aesthetic requirements, reduced morbidity), and when the following clinical conditions are met: a. Intact socket walls. b. Facial bone wall at least 1 mm in thickness. c. Thick soft tissue. d. No acute infection at the site. e. The availability of bone apical and lingual to the socket to provide primary stability. f. Insertion torque 25–40 Ncm and/or ISQ value >70. g. An occlusal scheme which allows for protection of the provisional restoration during function. h. Patient compliance.

5) Conventional loading is well documented and recommended with early implant placement

Early implant placement may be considered in most clinical situations, such as sites with thin facial walls and defects, often requiring simultaneous bone augmentation procedures. Conventional loading (type 2-3C) is well documented and is recommended with early implant placement. Immediate (type 2-3A) and early (type 2-3B) loading protocols combined with early implant placement are not sufficiently well documented to be recommended as routine procedures.

6) Late implant placement is the least desirable option due to the risk of alveolar ridge resorption

As a planned procedure, late implant placement is the least desirable of the placement time options, due to the risk of alveolar ridge resorption and reduction in bone volume, as well as extended treatment time. When late placement is indication for patient- or site-related reasons, an alveolar ridge preservation procedure is recommended.

7) Early loading and conventional loading are well-documented protocols for late implant placement

In the case of late implant placement, early loading (type 4B) and conventional loading (type 4C) are well-documented protocols and may be considered routine. Late implant placement with immediate loading (type 4A) may be considered when patient-centered advantages are present, and the criteria for immediate restoration/loading are met.