Long‐Term Survival of Dental Implants with Different Prosthetic Loading Times in Healthy Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Clinical Study

Purpose To compare survival rates among dental implants restored with immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols, also comparing between maxillary and mandibular implants, and to evaluate the influence of implant length and diameter and the type of prosthesis on treatment outcomes. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study initially included all 52 patients receiving dental implants between July 2006 and February 2008 at a private oral surgery clinic in Granada (Southern Spain). Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed, including periapical or panoramic radiographs, and incidences during completion of the restoration were recorded at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. After a 5‐year follow‐up, 1 patient had died, 3 were lost to follow‐up, and 6 required grafting before implant placement; therefore, the final study sample comprised 42 patients with 164 implants. Results Variables associated with the survival/failure of the restoration were: number of implants (higher failure rate with fewer implants), bone type (higher failure rate in type III or IV bone), and type of prosthesis (higher failure rate with single crowns). No significant association was found in univariate or multivariate analyses between survival rate and the loading protocol, implant length or diameter, or maxillary/mandibular location. Conclusions Immediate occlusal loading, immediate provisionalization without occlusal loading, and early loading are viable treatment options with similar survival rates to those obtained with conventional loading. Bone quality and number of implants per patient were the most influential factors.