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

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.