English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objectives  The aim of this consensus meeting was to assess whether immediate loading protocols achieve comparable clinical outcomes when compared to conventional loading protocols depending on the type of prosthetic restoration. In addition post‐loading implant loss for implant supported prostheses in edentulous jaws was analyzed regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw‐retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).    Material and methods  Two comprehensive systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the meeting. Consensus statements, practical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on within group as well as plenary scrutinization and discussions of these systematic reviews.    Results  The survival rates are high for immediate loaded and conventional loaded implants, but immediate loading may impose a greater risk for implant failure. The estimated implant loss rate is influenced by the implant location, type of restoration, and implant number.    Conclusions  Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high‐quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

clinical oral implants research

Loading protocols and implant supported restorations proposed for the rehabilitation of partially and fully edentulous jaws. Camlog Foundation Consensus Report