A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STABILITY OF IMMEDIATE, EARLY AND DELAYED PLACED IMPLANTS IN THE MAXILLARY ANTERIOR REGION USING RESONANCE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS: AN IN VIVO STUDY

Abstract

Background: Implant stability is a critical determinant of successful osseointegration and longterm prognosis of dental implants. The timing of implant placement, namely immediate, early, and delayed placement, may significantly influence primary and secondary stability outcomes, particularly in the maxillary anterior region where esthetic and functional demands are high. Aim: To evaluate and compare the primary and secondary stability of immediate, early, and delayed placed implants in the maxillary anterior region using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Materials and Methods: A prospective comparative in vivo study was conducted on 90 patients requiring implant placement in the maxillary anterior region. Patients were equally divided into three groups (n=30 each): Group A (immediate implant placement), Group B (early implant placement), and Group C (delayed implant placement). Implant stability was assessed using the Osstell Mentor device by recording Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values immediately after implant placement (baseline) and after six months. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and paired t-test. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Delayed implants demonstrated significantly greater primary stability (76.20 ± 6.90) compared with early (64.67 ± 5.52) and immediate implants (62.37 ± 4.13) (p<0.001). Similarly, secondary stability at six months was significantly higher in delayed implants (89.87 ± 6.69), followed by early (75.83 ± 5.93) and immediate implants (73.03 ± 3.85) (p<0.001). Significant intragroup increases in ISQ values were observed in all groups over the six-month period (p<0.001). Conclusion: Delayed implant placement demonstrated superior primary and secondary stability compared with immediate and early placement protocols. However, all three implant placement modalities achieved successful osseointegration and clinically acceptable implant stability outcomes.