Comparison of Delayed Implant Placement vs Immediate Implant Placement Using Resonance Frequency Analysis: A Pilot Study on Rabbits

Abstract

Ten identical implants were equally divided into 2 groups. In the immediate placement (control) group, implants were placed immediately following osteotomy preparation, and in the delayed placement (test) group, implants were placed 2 weeks following osteotomy preparation, in rabbit femurs. Implant stability quotient values for both groups were measured using resonance frequency analysis immediately following placement and at day 40. Results were statistically analyzed and indicate that delayed placement of implants leads to faster rates of osseointegration.

Long-term Evaluation of the Prognosis of Super Hydrophilic Surface Treated CA Implants: a Retrospective Clinical Study

“…Haas et al reported that immediate implant placement was more timee cient compared to delayed placement and could be a more aesthetic treatment option but did not show the same success rate as delayed placement [29]. In addition, Kunnekel et al found that osseointegration in delayed implantation occurred much faster than did that of immediate implantation according to resonance frequency analysis [30].…”

Long-term evaluation of the prognosis of super hydrophilic surface treated CA implants: a retrospective clinical study

“…Haas et al reported that immediate implant placement was more time-efficient compared to delayed placement and could be a more aesthetic treatment option but did not show the same success rate as delayed placement [ 30 ]. In addition, Kunnekel et al found that osseointegration in delayed implantation occurred much faster than did that of immediate implantation according to resonance frequency analysis [ 31 ].…”

Assessment of dental implant stability using resonance frequency analysis and quantitative ultrasound methods

“…However, the QUS device was different since the ultrasonic probe was manually positioned on the implant abutment screw, leading to reproducibility issues, whereas a controlled insertion torque is introduced in the present study. Moreover, the relationship between the ISQ and BIC values have also been previously investigated (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(45)(46)(47)) (see subsection 4.3) but none of these studies considered QUS measurements. The present study shows that QUS measurements (i) are better correlated to BIC values and (ii) have lower errors compared to RFA measurements.…”

“…Second, uncertainties on the estimation of BIC values was high because (i) only two BIC measurements could be realized for each implant and (ii) BIC measurements were realized on 2D histological sections, and can therefore only approximate actual BIC values on the entirety of the 3D implant. Third, a relatively low number of rabbits was considered herein, which is justified by ethical reasons and because it corresponds to the range of sample numbers used in previous studies using the Osstell device (15,22). Studies with more animals should be performed in the future.…”

“…However, the properties of the BII (17) cannot be directly identified through RFA, and the orientation of the device was found to significantly affect the ISQ score (18). The correlation between the ISQ and bone implant contact (BIC) is relatively weak and remains a subject of debate (19)(20)(21)(22)(23). Moreover, sensitivity issues of ISQ to changes of periprosthetic bone tissue have been raised, due to the fact that only the first bending mode is considered (24).…”