Comparative Evaluation of Osseointegration Using Resonance Frequency Analysis (ISQ, Osstell) Between Implants Treated With Static Magnetic Field Therapy and Untreated Controls: A Prospective Clinical

Osseointegration; Implant Stability Quotient; Resonance Frequency Analysis; Osstell; Static Magnetic Field; Dental Implants

Sonal Singh1*
Research Scholar, Departmentof
Prosthodontics and Crown &
Bridge, Teerthanker Mahaveer
Dental College & Research Centre,
Teerthanker Mahveer University,
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email Dr.sonaelsingh267@gmail.com

Dr. Vishwadeepak Singh2
Professor, Departmentof
Prosthodontics and Crown &
Bridge, Teerthanker Mahaveer
Dental College & Research Centre,
Teerthanker Mahveer University,
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email vishwadeepak.dental@tmu.ac.in

Received:12-06-2026
Revised:20-07-2026
Accepted: 28-07-2026

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry (2026) 34 (03), 01–08

Comparative Evaluation of Osseointegration Using Resonance Frequency Analysis (ISQ, Osstell) Between Implants Treated With Static Magnetic Field Therapy and Untreated Controls: A Prospective Clinical Study

Background: Primary implant stability and its progression to secondary (biological) stability during the healing phase are critical determinants of long-term implant success. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA), measured as the Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) using the Osstell device, provides a validated, non-invasive method of quantifying osseointegration over time. Static magnetic fields have been proposed as a non-invasive adjunct capable of accelerating bone healing and osseointegration around dental implants, though clinical evidence remains limited. Aim: To compare ISQ values, recorded using Osstell RFA, between implants receiving static magnetic field therapy and untreated controls, at baseline (Day 0) and at 1, 2, and 3 months post-placement. Materials and Methods: 10 dental implants were placed in 10 subjects and divided into 2 groups of five (n = 5 each). Group A received no adjunctive therapy (control), while Group B received static magnetic field therapy as an adjunct to promote osseointegration. ISQ values were recorded at implant placement (Day 0) and at 1, 2, and 3 months thereafter using a calibrated Osstell device. Data were tabulated and analyzed statistically. Results: Mean ISQ values increased significantly over time in both groups (repeated-measures ANOVA: Group A, F = 36.41, p < 0.001; Group B, F = 89.76, p < 0.001). Baseline (Day 0) ISQ values were comparable between Group A (71.6 ± 1.1) and Group B (73.0 ± 1.6), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.14). Both groups showed an initial decline in ISQ at 1 month, consistent with the transient stability dip (Group A: 65.6 ± 1.1; Group B: 69.0 ± 1.6; p = 0.004), after which Group B demonstrated significantly greater ISQ values than Group A at both 2 months (77.4 ± 1.1 vs. 70.6 ± 1.1; p < 0.001) and 3 months (84.0 ± 1.6 vs. 75.6 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), with the intergroup difference widening progressively over time. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this small pilot sample (n = 5 per group), adjunctive static magnetic field therapy was associated with significantly higher ISQ values than untreated controls from 1 month onward, with the difference widening progressively through 3 months, suggesting a faster rate of secondary implant stability gain during early osseointegration. These findings are preliminary and should be confirmed in larger, multicenter trials before static magnetic field therapy can be recommended for routine clinical use. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ejprd.org - Published by Riset Publication Services LLC

EJPRD

Copyright ©2026 by Riset Publication Services LLC