ArticleCureus2026
An Assessment of Implant Stability and Bite Force Following Early and Delayed Dental Implant Placement.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The timing of dental implant placement following tooth extraction is an important clinical consideration because it may influence osseointegration and functional rehabilitation. Although both early and delayed implant placement protocols are widely used, evidence regarding their effects on implant stability and masticatory function is limited. This study aimed to compare early and delayed dental implant placements in terms of implant stability and bite force. Materials and methods This prospective observational study was conducted at the Department of Prosthodontics, K. M. Shah Dental College and Hospital, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Sixty patients were categorized into two groups of 30 participants in each group. The early implant group received implants four to eight weeks after tooth extraction, whereas the delayed implant group underwent implant placement after a minimum healing period of six months. Implant stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and expressed as implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. Functional rehabilitation was evaluated by measuring the bite force using a digital occlusal force analyzer. Assessments were performed at baseline and six months after prosthetic loading. Statistical analyses were conducted using paired and independent t-tests, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in implant stability and bite force over the six-month follow-up period (p = 0.001). In the early implant group, the mean ISQ values increased from 62.4 ± 4.8 to 74.6 ± 3.9, whereas the delayed implant group showed an increase from 58.7 ± 5.2 to 71.2 ± 4.6. The bite force increased from 128.4 ± 22.6 N to 218.3 ± 31.4 N in the early implant group and from 134.7 ± 25.1 N to 204.6 ± 28.9 N in the delayed implant group. The early implant group demonstrated significantly higher implant stability at baseline and six months (p < 0.05). Although the bite force values at individual time points were comparable between the groups, the increase in bite force over time was significantly greater in the early implant group (p = 0.006). Conclusions Both early and delayed implant placement protocols achieved successful osseointegration and functional rehabilitation in the present study. However, early implant placement demonstrated superior implant stability and greater improvement in bite force, suggesting that it may provide favorable clinical outcomes when appropriate case selection and treatment planning are performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.