Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Occlusal loading refers to a modality in which an implant-supported prosthesis is subjected to functional loading, maintaining contact with the opposing dentition from the onset of prosthetic placement. In contrast, non-occlusal loading represents a non-functional approach, where...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Panagiotis Kourkoutis, Rawand Shado, Ines Novo Pereira, David Madruga, Haidar Hassan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Publishing Group 2025-07-01
Series:BDJ Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-025-00347-3
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849769388157173760
author Panagiotis Kourkoutis
Rawand Shado
Ines Novo Pereira
David Madruga
Haidar Hassan
author_facet Panagiotis Kourkoutis
Rawand Shado
Ines Novo Pereira
David Madruga
Haidar Hassan
author_sort Panagiotis Kourkoutis
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Occlusal loading refers to a modality in which an implant-supported prosthesis is subjected to functional loading, maintaining contact with the opposing dentition from the onset of prosthetic placement. In contrast, non-occlusal loading represents a non-functional approach, wherein a provisional implant prosthesis is initially placed in infra-occlusion or fully relieved of contact with the opposing dentition, which is subsequently (at a later stage) followed by functional (occlusal) loading with the definitive prosthesis. Aim To compare clinical outcomes in partially edentulous cases following an occlusal modality of loading versus non-occlusal modality of loading. Method A search on Pubmed, Scopus and Embase databases was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing occlusal versus non-occlusal modalities of implant loading in partially edentulous patients receiving implants with single crowns or fixed bridges, between January 1 (2004) to June 12 (2024), examining implant survival, complications and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants. The inclusion criteria involved RCTs of evidence level II (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence). For assessing bias in the included studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used. Results This review identified seven RCTs investigating 273 implants over 1–3 years follow-up periods. seven studies reported 1-year MBL data and three reported 3-year data. Publication bias was noted at the 1-year follow-up (p < 0.01) but not at 3 years (p > 0.05). Differences in MBL were not statistically significant at both 1 year (Hedges’ d = 0.01, p = 0.920, 95% CI: [−0.21, 0.24]) and 3 years (Hedges’ d = 0.01, p = 0.952, 95% CI: [−0.28, 0.30]). Differences in complication occurrences were not statistically significant (RR = 0.882, p = 0.759, 95% CI: [0.397, 1.964]). The nature of data on implant survival rates prevented a meaningful meta-analysis. Conclusion For short-term periods of 1–3 years, no significant evidence supports clinical superiority in terms of complication rates and MBL between non-occlusal and occlusal modalities of implant loading. Future studies should explore functional and aesthetic aspects, as well as patient reported outcomes to determine any short-term differences or consider long-term follow-up with large sample sizes to detect significant clinical differences.
format Article
id doaj-art-c2a9d439ed7446eca4d66eb6154505d0
institution DOAJ
issn 2056-807X
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format Article
series BDJ Open
spelling doaj-art-c2a9d439ed7446eca4d66eb6154505d02025-08-20T03:03:25ZengNature Publishing GroupBDJ Open2056-807X2025-07-0111111010.1038/s41405-025-00347-3Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysisPanagiotis Kourkoutis0Rawand Shado1Ines Novo Pereira2David Madruga3Haidar Hassan4Rey Juan Carlos UniversityBarts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University, Institute of Dentistry, Royal London Dental HospitalFaculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto (FMDUP) Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da SilvaRey Juan Carlos UniversityRey Juan Carlos UniversityAbstract Background Occlusal loading refers to a modality in which an implant-supported prosthesis is subjected to functional loading, maintaining contact with the opposing dentition from the onset of prosthetic placement. In contrast, non-occlusal loading represents a non-functional approach, wherein a provisional implant prosthesis is initially placed in infra-occlusion or fully relieved of contact with the opposing dentition, which is subsequently (at a later stage) followed by functional (occlusal) loading with the definitive prosthesis. Aim To compare clinical outcomes in partially edentulous cases following an occlusal modality of loading versus non-occlusal modality of loading. Method A search on Pubmed, Scopus and Embase databases was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing occlusal versus non-occlusal modalities of implant loading in partially edentulous patients receiving implants with single crowns or fixed bridges, between January 1 (2004) to June 12 (2024), examining implant survival, complications and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants. The inclusion criteria involved RCTs of evidence level II (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence). For assessing bias in the included studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used. Results This review identified seven RCTs investigating 273 implants over 1–3 years follow-up periods. seven studies reported 1-year MBL data and three reported 3-year data. Publication bias was noted at the 1-year follow-up (p < 0.01) but not at 3 years (p > 0.05). Differences in MBL were not statistically significant at both 1 year (Hedges’ d = 0.01, p = 0.920, 95% CI: [−0.21, 0.24]) and 3 years (Hedges’ d = 0.01, p = 0.952, 95% CI: [−0.28, 0.30]). Differences in complication occurrences were not statistically significant (RR = 0.882, p = 0.759, 95% CI: [0.397, 1.964]). The nature of data on implant survival rates prevented a meaningful meta-analysis. Conclusion For short-term periods of 1–3 years, no significant evidence supports clinical superiority in terms of complication rates and MBL between non-occlusal and occlusal modalities of implant loading. Future studies should explore functional and aesthetic aspects, as well as patient reported outcomes to determine any short-term differences or consider long-term follow-up with large sample sizes to detect significant clinical differences.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-025-00347-3
spellingShingle Panagiotis Kourkoutis
Rawand Shado
Ines Novo Pereira
David Madruga
Haidar Hassan
Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BDJ Open
title Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Occlusal vs non-occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort occlusal vs non occlusal modality of the loading protocol for oral implants in partially edentulous patients a systematic review and meta analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-025-00347-3
work_keys_str_mv AT panagiotiskourkoutis occlusalvsnonocclusalmodalityoftheloadingprotocolfororalimplantsinpartiallyedentulouspatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rawandshado occlusalvsnonocclusalmodalityoftheloadingprotocolfororalimplantsinpartiallyedentulouspatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT inesnovopereira occlusalvsnonocclusalmodalityoftheloadingprotocolfororalimplantsinpartiallyedentulouspatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT davidmadruga occlusalvsnonocclusalmodalityoftheloadingprotocolfororalimplantsinpartiallyedentulouspatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT haidarhassan occlusalvsnonocclusalmodalityoftheloadingprotocolfororalimplantsinpartiallyedentulouspatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis