Study	Reason for exclusion
Polson 2000	Trial comparing immediate versus conventional loading. Insufficient data presented. No reply to letter
Roccuzzo 2001	Trial comparing early versus conventional loading of different implant types
Testori 2003	Trial comparing immediate non‐occluding loading versus conventional loading but at the same time patients were also randomised to 2 different implant types
Salvi 2004	Trial comparing 2 early loading procedures (2 versus 6 weeks). Such comparison does not fit within this review
Appleton 2005	Trial comparing progressive versus direct loading after an healing period of 5 months. It was unclear whether the trial was actually randomised, there was a mixed study design parallel and split‐mouth and implants with problems not accounted for biasing the results. No replay to letter
Ottoni 2005	Trial comparing immediate versus conventional loading. The author informed us that the study was not a randomised controlled trial
Turkyilmaz 2006	Trial comparing early versus conventional loading. The author informed us that the study was not a randomised controlled trial
Romanos 2006	Trial comparing immediate versus conventional loading. The author informed us that the study was not a randomised controlled trial
Göthberg 2007	Ongoing trial comparing immediate versus early loading in partially edentulous patients. Patients are subsequently randomised again to 3 different abutment solutions (no abutment, abutment with a rough surface and abutment with a machined surface)
Cannizzaro 2008c	Trial comparing flapless surgery + modified implant installation technique + immediate loading versus conventional surgery and loading
Degidi 2009	Trial comparing immediate versus conventional loading, judged not to be randomised. No reply to letter
Van de Velde 2010	Trial comparing immediate versus early loading. Groups not comparable at baseline since implants were placed with flapless‐guide surgery only in the immediately loaded group
Shibly 2010	Trial comparing immediate (the same day) loading with delayed loading (3 months) of single post‐extractive implants. Author stated in both publications that 1 immediately loaded implants and 2 delayed loading implants failed. However in the table the presented the opposite results. In addition one patient dropped out but it was not possible to understand from which group. No reply to letter
Degidi 2010	Trial comparing immediate occlusal versus non‐occlusal loading, judged not to be randomised. No reply to letter
Tealdo 2011	Trial comparing immediate versus conventional loading. It is not a randomised controlled trial
Jokstad 2011	Trial comparing 2 early loading procedures (10 days versus 6‐8 weeks). Such comparison does not fit within this review
Kim 2011	Trial comparing 2 conventional loading after 4 months versus conventional loading after 6 months. Such comparison does not fit within this review
Mackie 2011	Trial comparing early loading at 2 weeks with early loading at 6 weeks with conventional loading at 12 weeks. A 'posthumous cocktail' of different RCTs, some of them already included in this review
Barewal 2012	Trial comparing immediate versus early versus conventional loading. The 'stratified' randomisation method used by the authors inevitably generated 3 non‐comparable groups, in fact the trial is not randomised