Diagnosis and Planning in Immediate Loading: Surgical Diagnosis

  • Ugo Covani
  • Enrica Giammarinaro
  • Paolo Toti
  • David Soto-Peñaloza
  • Giovanni B. Menchini Fabris
  • Simone Marconcini


For several decades, two-dimensional images were the only available for the surgical diagnosis prior to implant placement. The introduction of digital radiology and software applications for three-dimensional imaging has increased the prospects of success in implant diagnosis and surgical placement. The CBCT is definitely more precise and complete than panoramic radiography, but it is not always mandatory for every case. Success for fixed implant-supported rehabilitations, especially in immediate provisionalization techniques, depends on accurate pre-surgical evaluation of the following issues: (1) recognize feasible restoration procedures to rehabilitate patient edentulism; (2) list all the therapeutic possibilities, even if non-fixed solutions, evaluating the cost/benefit ratio of all treatments; (3) suggest the most correct treatment to the patient, after accurate evaluation of patient’s chief complaints; and (4) diagnosis and treatment proposal should be verified with a team that can supply technical support through knowledge and expertise about surgical, prosthetic, and laboratory requirements. The mechanical behavior of the bone is a determining factor for successful osseointegration. The most popular method for bone quality assessment was suggested by Lekholm and Zarb, and it was a radiographic index. Primary stability is for utmost importance during immediate loading protocols. Several invasive or noninvasive methods are employed to test the implant clinical stability: the Periotest, surgical insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis are classified among the noninvasive ones. Primary stability is heavily influenced by the surgical technique adopted. An expert surgeon might compensate for limiting factors such as type of jaw or bone quality. The immediate loading is a high-risk treatment, and just skillful surgeons could be able to identify optimal bone conditions under which patients can be treated conventionally.


Immediate loading CBCT Surgical planning Surgical diagnosis 





Cone beam computed tomography


Computed tomography


Digital imaging and communications in medicine


Hounsfield units


Insertion torque


Newtons per centimeter




Resonance frequency analysis


  1. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Piñas L, et al. Efficacy of biologically guided implant site preparation to obtain adequate primary implant stability. Ann Anat. 2015;199:9–15. Scholar
  2. Aparicio C, Lang NP, Rangert B. Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J Periodontol. 2010;81:43–51. Scholar
  4. Balshi SF, Allen FD, Wolfinger GJ, et al. A resonance frequency analysis assessment of maxillary and mandibular immediately loaded implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20:584–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barone A, Alfonsi F, Derchi G, et al. The effect of insertion torque on the clinical outcome of single implants: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:588–600. Scholar
  6. Bergkvist G, Koh KJ, Sahlholm S, et al. Bone density at implant sites and its relationship to assessment of bone quality and treatment outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:321–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogaerde LV, Pedretti G, Sennerby L, et al. Immediate/early function of Neoss implants placed in maxillas and posterior mandibles: an 18-month prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;12:e83–94. Scholar
  8. Cannizzaro G, Leone M, Consolo U, et al. Immediate functional loading of implants placed with flapless surgery versus conventional implants in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:867–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC, et al. Immediate implant placement postextraction without flap elevation. J Periodontol. 2009;80:163–72. Scholar
  10. Esposito M, Grusovin M-G, Achille H, et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;21:1–51.Google Scholar
  11. Friberg B, Sennerby L, Linden B, et al. Stability measurements of one-stage Branemark implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical resonance frequency analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;28:266–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fung K, Marzola R, Scotti R, et al. A 36-month randomized controlled split-mouth trial comparing immediately loaded titanium oxide-anodized and machined implants supporting fixed partial dentures in the posterior mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:631–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartog DL, Slater J-J, Vissink A, et al. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:1073–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:124–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66:203–13. Scholar
  16. Lekohlm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Alberktsson T, editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1985. p. 199–209.Google Scholar
  17. Lofthag-Hansen S, Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11:246–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luangchana P, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S, Kiattavorncharoen S, et al. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:1287–94. Scholar
  19. Maló P, Nobre M. Flap vs. flapless surgical techniques at immediate implant function in predominantly soft bone for rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective cohort study with follow-up of 1 year. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008;1:293–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Marconcini S, Giammarinaro E, Toti P, et al. Longitudinal analysis on the effect of insertion torque on delayed single implants: a 3-year randomized clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:322–32. Scholar
  21. Meredith N. A review of nondestructive test methods and their application to measure the stability and osseointegration of bone anchored endosseous implants. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 1998;26:275–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. Int J Oral Implantol. 1990;6:23–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Misch C. Progressive bone loading. Dent Today. 1995;14:80-3. Review. PubMed PMID: 9567099.Google Scholar
  24. Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, et al. Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography–derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:394–401. Scholar
  25. Park JC, Lee JH, Kim SM, et al. A comparison of implant stability quotients measured using magnetic resonance frequency analysis from two directions: prospective clinical study during the initial healing period. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:591–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pereira AC, Souza PP, Souza JA, et al. Histomorphometrical and molecular evaluation of endosseous dental implants sites in humans: correlation with clinical and radiographic aspects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:414–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ribeiro-Rotta RF, de Oliveira RC, Dias DR, et al. Bone tissue microarchitectural characteristics at dental implant sites: part 2. Correlation with bone classification and primary stability. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;25:1–7.Google Scholar
  28. Romanos GE. Bone quality and the immediate loading of implants – critical aspects based on literature, research, and clinical experience. Implant Dent. 2009;18:203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Romanos GE, Nentwig GH. Immediate functional loading in the maxilla using implants with platform switching: five-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:1106–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, et al. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone–dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999;10:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Steenberghe D, Glauser R, Blombäck U, et al. A computed tomographic scan-derived customized surgical template and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading of implants in fully edentulous maxillae: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(suppl 1):S111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ugo Covani
    • 1
  • Enrica Giammarinaro
    • 2
  • Paolo Toti
    • 2
  • David Soto-Peñaloza
    • 3
  • Giovanni B. Menchini Fabris
    • 1
  • Simone Marconcini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area PathologyUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Istituto Stomatologico Toscano, Fondazione per la Ricerca e l’alta Formazione in OdontoiatriaLido di Camaiore – LUItaly
  3. 3.Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations