Purpose: To identify whether or not immediate loading yields different clinical outcomes from conventional loading of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone. Materials and Methods: Various databases (MEDLINE/ PubMed, Cochrane [CENTRAL], and Embase) were searched electronically to find articles published in the English language from January 2000 to April 2018. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that compared conventional and immediate implant loading with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year or more were considered. Available data were pooled for meta-analysis using the Review Manager software. Results: Seven RCTs were included. There was no significant difference between immediate and conventional loading protocols on implant survival at the 1-year follow-up (risk ratio [RR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95 to 1.02). The differences regarding marginal bone loss between the two protocols were statistically insignificant (mean difference [MD] = 0.03 mm; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.15 mm at the 1-year follow-up, and MD = -0.01 mm; 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.15 mm at the 2-year follow-up). Soft tissue changes following different loading protocols revealed no significant differences in the mesial papillae (MD = 0.30 mm; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.85 mm), the distal papillae (MD = -0.00 mm; 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.42 mm), and the midfacial mucosa (MD = -0.33 mm; 95% CI: -1.17 to 0.50 mm) at the 1-year follow-up. The esthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction were reported in two and three RCTs, respectively. Conclusion: A short-term follow-up of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone showed that the loading protocols (conventional or immediate loading) are not likely to influence the clinical outcomes, including implant survival and peri-implant stability of soft and hard tissues. Keywords: esthetic zone, immediate loading, peri-implant, single implant, stability