Immediate versus conventional loaded single implants in the posterior mandible: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare implant survival, marginal bone loss, and complications between immediate and conventional loading of single implants installed in the posterior mandible. An extensive electronic search was performed of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant articles published up to January 2015. After the selection process, five studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. The results of the meta-analysis were expressed in terms of the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. Results were pooled according to heterogeneity using the fixed- or random-effects model. There was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques (immediate loading vs. conventional loading) with regard to implant survival (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.36; P = 0.47). There was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss (SMD −0.58, 95% CI −1.55 to 0.38; P = 0.24). The reported mechanical and biological complications were common to both types of intervention, with the exception of probing depth, which was greater following the immediate loading technique (SMD 0.13, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.44), although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.43).