Title

Traditional versus compressive implant osseointegration after immediate placement: A randomized histomorphometric study

Authors

Rajkran Chitumalla¹, Lalit Narayan Singh², Roshan Samuel^3,*, R. Rashmi⁴, Afreen Kouser⁴, Meghna Pujara⁵ & Tanvi Hirani⁶

Affiliation

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; ²Department of Dentistry, Autonomous State Medical College Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; ³Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Vishwa Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Taluka-Karad, Satara, Maharashtra, India; ⁴Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Bangalore, India; ⁵Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Science, Dharmsinh Desai University, Nadiad, Gujarat, India; ⁶Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University Gandhinagar Gujarat, India; *Corresponding author

Email

Rajkran Chitumalla - E-mail: chitumallar@ksau-hs.edu.sa
Lalit Narayan Singh - E-mail: singhlalit347@gmail.com
Roshan Samuel - E-mail: spkroshan1974@gmail.com
R .Rashmi - E-mail: dr.rashmi743@gmail.com
Afreen Kouser - E-mail: connectafreen@gmail.com
Meghna Pujara - E-mail: drmeg_jani@yahoo.com
Tanvi Hirani - E-mail: tanvimehta@karnavatiuniversity.edu.in

Article Type

Research Article

Date

Received February 1, 2026; Revised February 28, 2026; Accepted February 28, 2026, Published February 28, 2026

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.

Keywords

Immediate implant placement; compressive implant; osseointegration; bone-to-implant contact; primary stability; extraction socket; macrogeometry

Citation

Chitumalla et al. Bioinformation 22(2): 908-911 (2026)

Edited by

Vini Mehta

ISSN

0973-2063

Publisher

Biomedical Informatics

License

This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. This is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.