## 4 Discussion  
Implant stability can be divided into primary and secondary stability. The first is a mechanical type of bond determined by factors related to both implant characteristics (macroscopic, surface morphology) and implant site (type of preparation, bone quality) [11]. Secondary stability, on the other hand, is a biological type of bond determined by the formation of new bone and bone remodeling in contact with the implant surface [12]. During the osseointegration process, primary stability gradually decreases, while secondary stability increases [13]. These changes, which occur at the bone-implant interface, can be detected by RFA using ISQ values [14]. Several studies have investigated the correlation between ISQ values and implant outcome (survival rate), but with inconsistent results. [PERSON] et al. found a significant correlation between poor primary stability, measured with RFA, and implant failure [15]. In contrast, [PERSON] et al. did not attribute any predictive value to RFA findings for implant failure [16]. In a prospective study conducted on a sample of 1500 patients and 4000 implants, aimed to investigate the role of primary stability as a predictive factor for implant outcome, [PERSON] et al. showed that ISQ values (primary stability) measured at the time of implant placement was not predictive of implant outcome (no implant failed  
Figure 2: ISQ mean values and standard deviation (vertical bars) of the control (G1) and the test (G2) group. Measurements were recorded during the follow-up visits at different time points: T0 (immediately after the implant placement), T7 (7 th day after implant placement), T14 (14 th day after implant placement), T21 (21 st day after implant placement), T50 (50 th day after implant placement), and T90 (90 th day after implant placement). when ISQ \(\leq\) 60). In contrast, ISQ values measured after the healing period of 2-4 months (secondary stability) showed a statistically significant correlation with implant outcome: no implant failed with an ISQ \(\geq\) 60, while 19% of implants failed with an ISQ \(<\) 60, suggesting a different degree of osseointegration, with a lack of bone-implant contact in implants with lower ISQ values [17]. The present study was the first human study in which NeFeB Supercharged(r) Sc was prepared specifically for implants to evaluate its effect on bone healing and stability. The null hypothesis was rejected. Overall, at the end of the follow-up, all implants in both the test and control groups were in place and functioning, with no signs of inflammation of the surrounding soft tissue. Even though the observation period was short (90 days), there was no early implant failure. Probably, the reason for this is that the factors blamed for early implant failure (such as smoking habits, occlusal overloading, etc.) were avoided [18,19]. In the control group, ISQ values decreased from T0 to T21, only to increase during the remaining observation period. These findings can be the result of the expression of the osseointegration process, which is characterized by the progressive lack of primary stability and the increase in secondary stability. In contrast, in the test group, ISQ values increased progressively, reaching from the 14 th day a statistically significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) compared to T0. Comparing the data of the test group with those of the control group, differences can be seen at T14, T21, and T50. At T90, there were no statistical differences in ISQ between the two groups. The results of the present study appear to be consistent with those reported in the literature, reflecting the fact that SMFs have a beneficial effect in the early stages of the osseointegration process. Several studies have investigated the positive effects of SMF on the osseointegration process of implants [20, 21, 22, 23]. [PERSON] et al. reported an increase in ISQ scores and a decrease in peri-implant bone loss in the SMF group compared to the control group in the first months of healing [24]. [PERSON] et al.