Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Traditional versus compressive implant osseointegration after immediate placement: A randomized histomorphometric
Rajkran Chitumalla1, Lalit Narayan Singh2, Roshan Samuel3
1Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Ministry of National Guard-Health affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract:
Immediate implant placement challenges primary stability and osseointegration in compromised extraction sockets with large gap distances or thin buccal plates. Therefore, it is of interest to compare 40 conventional tapered implants versus 40 compressive-thread implants in 80 patients. Primary outcomes included histomorphometric bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO%) at 4 months, plus ISQ stability values. Compressive implants showed superior BIC% (68.4 ± 8.7% vs 52.3 ± 9.1%, p<0.001), BAFO% (61.2 ± 7.4% vs 48.9 ± 8.2%, p<0.001), ISQ gains and less buccal resorption (0.41 ± 0.22 vs 1.08 ± 0.39, p<0.001). Compressive macrogeometry advances immediate placement by optimizing early osseointegration and bone preservation in high-risk sites.
