Skip to content

Immediate Versus Delayed Loading of Dental Implants in the Anterior Maxilla

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Immediate Versus Delayed Loading of Dental Implants at the Anterior Maxilla

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07381283
Enrollment
16
Registered
2026-02-02
Start date
2024-02-03
Completion date
2025-10-12
Last updated
2026-02-02

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dental Implant Loading, Partial Edentulism of the Maxilla, Tooth Loss in the Anterior Maxilla

Keywords

Dental Implants, Immediate Loading, Delayed Loading, Maxillary Implants, Anterior Maxilla, Partial Edentulism, Implant Stability, Osseointegration

Brief summary

This interventional comparative clinical study was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical stability and radiographic outcomes of immediate versus delayed loading of dental implants placed in the anterior region of the maxilla. Immediate loading protocols have been shown to improve oral health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction; however, their influence on implant stability and osseointegration remains an area of ongoing investigation. A total of sixteen dental implants were placed and the participants were randomly allocated into two equal groups using a computer-generated randomization method (www.Randomizer.org). In Group I (control group), eight implants were placed and restored following a delayed loading protocol, with prosthetic loading performed six months after implant placement. In Group II (study group), eight implants were placed and immediately loaded with provisional polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) restorations. After six months, the provisional restorations were replaced with definitive fixed prostheses. Preoperative planning of implant placement was performed using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Clinical evaluation of implant stability was carried out using the Osstell device, while radiographic assessment of peri-implant bone density and marginal bone changes was performed using standardized indirect digital radiographs. Radiographic evaluations were obtained immediately after implant placement and at six months postoperatively. The clinical and radiographic outcomes of both loading protocols were compared to assess implant stability and osseointegration.

Interventions

DEVICEDental Implant

Endosseous dental implants placed in the anterior maxilla and restored using either immediate or delayed loading protocols.

Sponsors

Suez Canal University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 55 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Adults aged 20-55 years * Both genders * Healthy individuals (ASA I) without systemic diseases * Patients with one or more missing teeth in the anterior maxilla

Exclusion criteria

* Pregnant or lactating women, or females with osteoporosis * Patients with harmful oral habits such as bruxism or smoking * Poor oral hygiene * Gingival or periodontal diseases with severe vertical or horizontal bone loss * Teeth with periapical or lateral infections or lesions

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Implant Stability (ISQ)Baseline (immediately after implant placement) and 6 months postoperativelyClinical stability of dental implants was assessed using the Osstell device. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately after implant placement and at 6 months postoperatively. ISQ scores range from 1-100, with scores ≥70 indicating high stability, 60-69 medium stability, and \<60 low stability.
Peri-implant Bone DensityBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsBone density around the implants was measured using standardized direct paralleling digital periapical radiographs and analyzed with IDRISI Kilimanjaro software. Two zones were evaluated: the osseointegration zone near the implant border and the surrounding bone interface. Measurements were recorded immediately postoperatively and at 3 and 6 months.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Postoperative Pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS)1, 3, and 7 days postoperativelyPatients reported the degree of pain using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst possible pain. Pain was assessed at 1, 3, and 7 days postoperatively.
Visual Scale of Edema1, 3, and 7 days postoperativelyFacial edema was assessed using a visual grading scale: No edema, Low-grade, Intermediate-grade, and High-grade, based on visual inspection and palpation. Edema was evaluated at 1, 3, and 7 days postoperatively.

Countries

Egypt

Contacts

STUDY_CHAIRMohamed Said Hamed, Professor

Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry - Suez Canal University

STUDY_DIRECTORAsmaa Yousri Abdallah, Assistant professor

Assistant professor of Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry

STUDY_DIRECTORAhmed Abd elmohsen Younis, Assistant professor

Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry - Suez Canal University

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026