I am grateful Dr Muhamad for a comprehensive review and supporting literature. Systematic review by Paperagiou in AJODO 2012 also supports your view point of no change in success of micro-implants with immediate vs delayed loading.

I got skeptical when I correlated clinical findings of implant success with studies at cellular and biochemical level.  Studies evaluating interleukin-1 in peri-implant fluid clearly indicates immediate rise in levels in 1hr and 24hr peak levels on micro implant placement indicting high inflammation Then, how justified it is to load micro-implants immediately. Also, evidence indicates bone dust formation, micro cracks and diffuse bone damage on implant placement, that also logically supports some delay in loading for healing period.

Hence,  some institutes have delayed loading protocol, but even they don't still have any   evidence supporting their protocols, varying from 2weeks to months.

I would really appreciate , if we can initiate discussion regarding this:

kindly go through:

Monga N, Chaurasia S, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Rajeswari MR. A study of interleukin 1β levels in peri-miniscrew crevicular fluid (PMCF). Progress in Orthodontics2014:15;30.

Shank SB, Beck FM, D’AtriAM ,HujaSS. Bone damage associated with orthodontic               placement of miniscrew implants in an animal model. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop   2012;141:412-8.

from my experience , direct loading is the best.

Immediate or delayed loading?

immediate

Can u share some of ur comparative experience between immediate and delayed loading...as regards impant stability

According to my friend's (Msc in orthodontics) experience, better is to choose an immediate loading protocol. According to Dilek the range for immediate loading in PTV is -8 to 9, some other studies showed best result at -8 to 2 of PTV suitable for immediate loading.

Thank u so much for ur interest. I would really be interested in any supporting evidence if u can give...any article or grey literature, if u can cite

Here you go...

Dilek O, Tezulas E, Dincel M.: Required minimum primary stability and torque values for immediate loading of mini dental implants: an experimental study in nonviable bovine femoral bone. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics , Volume 105 , Issue 2 , e20 - e27

Thank you so much ...will go through it and would initiate further discussion

Dear Doctor

The study mentioned above is on mini dental implants. It is true that primary and secondary stability factors govern the stability in both dental implants and orthodontic micro implants but there is a basic difference of use of orthodontic micro implants being temporary in oral cavity , hence osseointegration is not too much a concern. However, secondary stability factors are coming up in a big way now, concerned with peri-implantitis and host governing factors. That is the reason, I contemplated whether surrounding inflammation apart from the primary stability factors eg, insertion torque values, should be given due importance and a definite protocol compatible with host biology for loading be established, for better micro- implant stability. I would really appreciate researchers to give their views on this.

I thought you asked about an orthodontic implants. For me micro implants or micro screws = orthodontic implants.

I use a term of mini implant when talking about standard implants with diameter below 3mm.

Look at the link below:

http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/protesis/methods_used_to_assess_implant_stability.pdf

Sir the references cited above concern the dental implants that are placed to replaced lost teeth...orthodontic micro implants are placed as temporary anchorage devices...nevertheless the biological processes concerned with them are similar ...The loading concept in orthodontic micro implants pertains to the time the force is applied on the anchorage device...

However  the concept of primary and secondart stability is really interesting as mentioned in your cited references..I would be grateful if we could shed further light on remodelling at cellular level...

Basicly there is not fix protocol> in regards with mini implant, you can directly load  the implant

Sir, that is precisely my point. There is no fixed protocol but with the advent  of literature on bone dust and diffuse micro cracks in bone on micro implant placement, I feel it is relevant we look for a standardized protocol based on sound biologic principles. I request the post graduate guides who are guiding thesis or otherwise clinically their students, share their views on this. 

In my opinion you should look for an articles in terms of stress distribution in bone of implants initially loaded. The stress distribution around implant in cortical bone is obviously different than this in spongious bone. The stress magnitude in the cancellous bone appears to be minor because of its lower elastic modulus. Also, the important question is, does a stress in bone near implant apex has an influence for tooth's root located in its vicinity.

Yes sir..I agree that would be valid point to look for how the microcracks propagate to surrounding tooth root...how the loading schedule may lead to healing of surrounding microimplant area and more success of microimplants..

Waiting for inputs

https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/31/1/21/446648

In summary, miniscrew implants present the following advantages when used for orthodontic anchorage purposes: ● Insertion and removal does not require any particular surgical procedure, in contrast with other means available such as orthodontic implants, miniplates, and onplants that require flap surgery. ● Miniscrew implants can be easily inserted chair side in one appointment, even by the orthodontist. ● There is no need for complicated clinical and laboratory procedures (i.e., fabrication of acrylic splints by taking imprints with additional implant copying systems to accurately transfer the implant position to cast models) to facilitate safe and precise implant insertion. ● Miniscrew implants can be immediate loaded (there is no need for a waiting period for osseointegration, in contrast to orthodontic implants), reducing the total treatment time. ● Miniscrew implants offer a variety of locations that can be inserted, unlike conventional dental implants used for orthodontic anchorage. ● The provided absolute anchorage eliminates undesirable effects on the teeth that otherwise would have been normally used as anchorage. ● Patient cooperation is limited to maintaining immaculate oral hygiene. ● Miniscrew implants can be easily removed. ● Cost is relative compared with other conventional methods used for anchorage, while much lower in comparison to the orthodontic implants.

The Orthodontic Mini-implant Clinical Handbook

The Orthodontic Mini-implant Clinical Handbook by Richard Cousley - PDF Drive

Mainly mini-implant success in orthodontics depends to a large extent on primary stability and bone structure at the insertion site. There are a host of factors responsible for success and failure of mini-implants, however the purpose of using a mini-implant will determine the location of the mini-implant. An important factor is the location of the mini-implant insertion. Most studies have found that palatal mini-implants have better success rates than other sites.