Implantes dentários : comparação entre carga imediata e reabilitação convencional na previsibilidade do resultado final.

Abstract

Among the many challenges in dentistry, missing teeth stand out because they directly affect basic functions, aesthetics, and even psychological aspects, making it essential to seek predictable and long-lasting rehabilitation protocols. In this context, this study sought to compare the clinical predictability of two rehabilitation methods: immediate load implants and conventional-load implants. The objective was to identify which of these protocols yields better results in terms of stability, longevity, and safety in clinical situations. To achieve this goal, a literature review was conducted in national and international databases, including articles published between 2019 and 2025, as well as classic references on osseointegration, primary stability, and success criteria. The findings revealed that both protocols have high success rates, albeit with distinct characteristics. Conventional loading, by respecting the natural healing time before prosthesis placement, proved to be more predictable and with a lower risk of failure in critical areas or areas of poor bone quality. However, it requires longer treatment time and can cause some discomfort to the patient. Immediate loading, on the other hand, has been shown to expedite the rehabilitation process, offering improved aesthetics and early masticatory function. However, its success depends decisively on achieving adequate primary stability and correct case selection. Differences in bone and tissue behavior have also been observed. Thus, it can be seen that both protocols are safe options, as long as they are applied according to well-defined criteria. The choice between them should consider the individual clinical conditions, the patient's systemic status, and careful planning by the dentist.