A secure implant primary (mechanical) stability is positively associated with a successful implant integration and long-term successful clinical outcome. Therefore, it is essential to assess the initial stability at different time-points to ensure a successful osseointegration. The present study critically reviews the factors that may play a role in achieving a successful initial stability in dental implants. Databases were searched from 1983 up to and including October 2013 using different combinations of various keywords. Bone quality and quantity, implant geometry, and surgical technique adopted may significantly influence primary stability and overall success rate of dental implants.

Radiographs revealed a greater reduction of alveolar ridge in the CS group than in the MHA group. Histologic examination showed more bone formation and faster resorption in the CS group and more residual implant material in the MHA group.

The results of this study demonstrated that LMSF procedure in fresh molar sockets allowed to expand the dimensions of resorbed posterior maxillary alveolar bone both vertically and horizontally with a success rate of 100% of implant osseointegration over time.

Er:YAG laser periodontal treatment resulted in statistically significant improvements in PD and CAL gain compared to ultrasonic scaler treatment at 2-year follow-up, especially in moderate and deep pockets.

At the 24-month follow-up, endosseous implants placed immediately in extraction sites affected by periapical infection rendered an equally favorable soft and hard tissue integration of the implants, revealing a predictable outcome.

At 4-year follow-up, the results suggested that the presence of mid-buccal KM is not a critical factor in the maintenance of interproximal bone level around fresh socket implants immediately loaded. Conversely, less width of KM is significantly associated with more gingival inflammation, more plaque accumulation, and more gingival recession.

No abstract

Implants placed into fresh extraction sockets with or without regenerative procedures and used to support single crown prosthesis showed a very high cumulative success rate (97%) in a 4-year prospective study. Several observations should be made: 1) all the patients were preselected as candidates for implants and were following a strict oral hygiene regimen; 2) all efforts were made to reduce the number of cases requiring GBR procedures; 3) all the implants had an acid etched/sandblasted implant surface; and 4) all the prosthetic restorations were single crowns.