Primary and Secondary Stability of Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Coated Versus Sandblasted, Acid-Etched Tapered Implants in the...

There is a dearth of clinical studies comparing the primary (PS) and secondary stability (SS) of nano-hydroxyapatite-coated, sandblasted, and acid-etched (SAE) implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the primary and secondary outcomes of nano-hydroxyapatite-coated and SAE implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The aim was to assess the primary and secondary outcomes of nano-hydroxyapatite-coated and SAE tapered implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The study employed a triple-blinded, randomized, controlled trial design. Information regarding the patients' age, gender, and duration of edentulism in the maxillary molar region was collected using a structured questionnaire. Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: group 1 was individuals who received nano-hydroxyapatite-coated implants (n = 26), and group 2 was individuals who received SAE implants (n = 26). The PS was measured immediately after implant placement, and SS was assessed at 4 and 6 weeks and 4 months of follow-up. Group comparisons were performed, and the level of significance was set at P < .05. At 4 (P < .01) and 6 weeks (P < .01) of follow-up, SS was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2. There was no difference in SS at 4 months of follow-up in groups 1 and 2. There was no statistically significant correlation between implant stability and age, gender, implant dimensions, or insertion torque. Due to the stringent inclusion criteria and the use of a convenience sampling design, it is challenging to draw definitive conclusions about the effects of nano-hydroxyapatite-coated versus SAE implants on primary SS in the posterior maxilla.