# Implant Stability in Narrow Posterior Alveolar Ridges: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Conventional Ridge Split and Osseodensification

## TL;DR

This study compares two techniques for placing dental implants in narrow jawbones and finds that osseodensification provides better initial stability than the conventional method.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence that osseodensification improves primary implant stability in narrow posterior mandibular ridges.

## Key findings

- Osseodensification resulted in significantly higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) values compared to conventional ridge splitting.
- No significant difference in stability was found between first and second molar sites within each group.
- Osseodensification is suggested as a more effective technique for implant placement in compromised ridge conditions.

## Abstract

Introduction: Successful implant placement in the posterior mandible often requires augmentation of narrow ridges. This study aimed to compare the primary stability of dental implants placed using the conventional ridge split technique and the osseodensification method in narrow posterior mandibular ridges.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 14 patients, with a total of 28 implants divided equally between two groups. Group I underwent conventional ridge splitting, and Group II received implant site preparation via osseodensification. Primary stability was evaluated immediately after implant placement using the Osstell Mentor device (Osstell AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) to obtain implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. Data was analyzed, and mean ISQs were compared using independent t-tests.

Results: Implants placed using the osseodensification technique exhibited significantly higher ISQ values compared to those placed using the conventional ridge split technique (p < 0.001). No significant difference in stability was observed between the lower first and second molar sites bilaterally within each group. The results indicated that osseodensification offered superior primary stability.

Conclusion: Both the conventional ridge split and osseodensification techniques effectively enabled implant placement in narrow posterior mandibular ridges. However, the osseodensification technique demonstrated significantly greater primary stability, suggesting its potential advantage in clinical practice for achieving predictable outcomes in compromised ridge scenarios.