The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different implant sites an under-preparation sequence associated with two different implant designs on implant primary stability measured by two parameters: insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ). It used two different implants: one cylindrical as a control and another one with a tapered design. The implants were inserted in type III fresh humid bovine bone and four drilling sequences were used: one control, the one proposed by the implant company (P1), and three different undersized (P2, P3 and P4). P2 was the same as P1 without the cortical drill, P3 was without the last pilot drill and P4 was without both of them. The sample size was n = 40 for each of the eight groups. Final IT was measured with a torquemeter and the ISQ was measured with Penguin resonance frequency analysis. Results showed that both ISQ and IT have a tendency to increase as the preparation technique reduces the implant site diameter when compared with the standard preparation, P1. The preparations without cortical drill, P2 and P4, showed the best results when compared with the ones with a cortical drill. Tapered implants always showed higher or the same ISQ and IT values when compared with the cylindrical implants. Giving the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that reducing implant preparation can increase IT and ISQ values. Removing the cortical drill and the use of a tapered design implant are also effective methods of increasing primary implant stability.

Background: Implant dentistry has evolved over time, resulting in better treatment outcomes for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this trial was to test whether the immediate loading of implants with a platform-switching design influences the marginal bone level, compared to four-week loading, after one year of follow-up. Moreover, a comparison of clinical data regarding implant survival, implant stability, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was conducted. Methods: Klockner^® VEGA^® implants with a ContacTi^® surface were placed in partially edentulous patients in the posterior areas. Group A received an immediately loaded prosthesis (one week) and Group B received an early-loaded prosthesis (four weeks). All abutments were placed at the time of surgery. Radiographic and clinical data were recorded. Results: Twenty-one patients were treated (35 implants). No implants were lost during the study. The final marginal bone level did not show differences between groups. The bone loss at 12 months at the implant level was 0.00 mm for both groups (median). The final implant quotient stability (ISQ) values did not differ between groups (median 73 and 70.25), nor did the other clinical parameters or PROMs. Conclusions: The results suggest that neither of the loading protocols with the implants used influenced the marginal bone level—not the osseointegration rate, clinical conditions, or PROMs.