OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess whether the implant design affects primary (P.S.) and secondary stability (S.S.), bone level (B.L.), and PES/WES evaluation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty implants with two different designs (n = 10) were immediately placed and randomly located in the upper anterior maxilla with no grafting material. Implant-Stability-Quotient (ISQ), B.L., and Pink-Esthetic-Score/White-Esthetic-Score (PES/WES) were evaluated. Shapiro–Wilk normality test was performed to determine the sample normality, as the data did not follow a normal distribution, the Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test was applied (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

ISQ was determined at placement (PS): control 59.1 (C.I.54.8–63.3); experimental 62.2(C.I.60.1–64.2) and three months after placement (SS): control 62.2.1 (C.I.53.3– 71.0); experimental 67.2(C.I.65.8–68.5). The BL was measured at three months after placement: control 0.38 mm (C.I.− 0.06 to + 0.83); experimental 0.76 mm (C.I.0.33–1.19) and at 12 months postloading: control 0.07 mm (C.I.− 0.50–0.65); experimental 0.90 mm (C.I.0.38–1.42). PES/WES values were evaluated for the control group: 15 (C.I.12.68–17.32), and for the experimental group 15.20 (C.I.11.99–18.41). No significant differences were shown between both implant designs.

CONCLUSION

A good grade of osseointegration and primary/secondary stability was achieved, as well as proper maintenance of crestal bone and adequate PES/WES scores. The criteria for selection for the ideal patient for immediate implant placement is essential.