## 3 Results
### Bone Density  
Regardless of the difference in diameters, OD-CC groups had higher HU gaps than the CD and OD-C groups (\(p<0.05\)), in all areas (coronal, middle, and apical area). There was no statistical difference in diameters between CD and OD-C groups. In OD-CC, the larger the drilling diameter was, the higher was the HU gap, in all areas, indicating that it was the highest for 5.5 mm diameter. However, this was significant only between 3.5 mm and 5.5 mm (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 3).  
Regardless of diameter, apical values were significantly highest values in all OD-CC groups (\(p<0.05\)). There were no significant differences between the coronal and middle areas. There were no statistical differences in any area between the CD and OD-C groups. Comparing OD-C and OD-CC groups, there was a difference of a minimum of 43 HU in the middle area with a 3.5 mm diameter, and a maximum 180 of HU in the apical area with 5.5 mm diameter (Figures 3-6).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **ISQ Value** & **Comparison between Groups \({}^{*}\)** \\ \hline A & Standard drilling with CD & \(-4.38\pm 1.58\) & C, D \\ B & Standard drilling with OD-C & \(-5.49\pm 1.51\) & E \\ C & Standard drilling with OD-CC & \(-6.10\pm 0.87\) & A, F \\ D & Under-drilling with CD & \(-6.23\pm 0.87\) & A, F \\ E & Under-drilling with OD-C & \(-7.02\pm 0.98\) & B, F \\ F & Under-drilling with OD-CC & \(-7.67\pm 0.47\) & C, D, E \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* PTV, Periotest value; CD, conventional technique; OD-C, oseosedensification technique in the clockwise direction; OD-CC, oseosedensification technique in the counter-clockwise direction.
* Statistically significant difference (\(p<0.05\); Kruskal–Wallis test).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Periotest values in the experimental groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Drilling Diameter** & **Coronal Area** & **Middle Area** & **Apical Area** \\ \hline CD & 3.8 mm & 587.50 \(\pm\) 65.24 & 572.50 \(\pm\) 84.17 & 583.33 \(\pm\) 83.39 \\  & 4.8 mm & 604.17 \(\pm\) 71.94 & 610.83 \(\pm\) 61.48 & 615.00 \(\pm\) 87.74 \\  & 5.8 mm & 615.84 \(\pm\) 61.41 & 595.00 \(\pm\) 87.94 & 582.50 \(\pm\) 81.25 \\ \hline OD-C & 3.5 mm & 602.50 \(\pm\) 69.28 & 604.17 \(\pm\) 61.97 & 606.67 \(\pm\) 63.29 \\  & 4.5 mm & 588.33 \(\pm\) 64.57 & 611.67 \(\pm\) 72.14 & 611.67 \(\pm\) 75.64 \\  & 5.5 mm & 605.83 \(\pm\) 82.44 & 603.33 \(\pm\) 69.09 & 596.67 \(\pm\) 86.29 \\ \hline OD-CC & 3.5 mm & 648.33 \(\pm\) 76.26 & 647.50 \(\pm\) 59.94 & 704.17 \(\pm\) 52.56 \\  & 4.5 mm & 672.50 \(\pm\) 76.38 & 690.00 \(\pm\) 75.89 & 745.83 \(\pm\) 74.30 \\  & 5.5 mm & 685.00 \(\pm\) 59.67 & 714.17 \(\pm\) 73.01 & 776.67 \(\pm\) 79.31 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* CD, conventional technique; OD-C, oseosedensification technique in the clockwise direction; OD-CC, oseosedensification technique in the counter-clockwise direction.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Hounsfield unit gaps in groups.  
Figure 4: Comparison of Hounsfield unit gaps according to area at 4.8 mm diameter of conventional technique and 4.5 mm diameter of osseedensification technique: (A) conventional technique; (B) oseedensification technique in the clockwise direction; (C) oseedensification technique in the counter-clockwise direction.  
Figure 5: Comparison of Hounsfield unit gaps according to area at 5.8 mm diameter of conventional technique and 5.5 mm diameter of osseedensification technique: (A) conventional technique; (B) oseedensification technique in the clockwise direction; (C) oseedensification technique in the counter-clockwise direction.  
Figure 3: Comparison of Hounsfield unit gaps according to area at 3.8 mm diameter of conventional technique and 3.5 mm diameter of osseedensification technique: (A) conventional technique; (B) oseedensification technique in the clockwise direction; (C) oseedensification technique in the counter-clockwise direction.