## 3 Results  
Due to the large contrast assumed for the elastic moduli of the two bone compartments, much greater stress values of up to 203 MPa were observed in cortical bone as compared to a maximum of 54 MPa recorded in trabecular bone. As stress can be transferred from cortical bone to trabecular bone, in both implant designs, increasing stress was already observed in trabecular bone when the implants started to compress the cortical bone layer. A stress rise in both bone layers was detected at insertion distances of 2 mm and 1.2 mm for the SCI and MT, respectively (Figure 4a,b). This difference was due to the later contact of SCI with the bone, which is attributed to its tapered macrodesign. Similarly, SCI and MT began to contact trabecular bone at distances of 4.2 mm and 3.2 mm, respectively. However, the influence of the trabecular bone is evident even before the direct contact. As shown in Figure 4a,b, the stress build-up in trabecular bone begins prior to the actual contact between trabecular bone and implants. This simultaneous appearance can be explained by the close interconnection between the cortical and trabecular layers of bone, transmitting stress between the layers despite the large elastic contrast. Please compare also the evolution of maximum strain for both implants (Figure 5) and the maps of von-Mises stress for mesial-distal and lingual-buccal sections given in Figure 6 for the SCI and in Figure 7 for the MT implant. At an insertion distance of 6 mm, the cutting threads of MT pass through the cortical layer, leading to a decrease in stress levels. Around the same time, the stress in the trabecular bone reaches its maximum and remains relatively constant until the final insertion step. After this point, the maximum stress in the cortical bone begins to increase again (Figure 4a). At approximately 8.7 mm, the neck of the implant SCI, which has a constant diameter, enters cortical bone, resulting in a decrease in maximum stress (Figure 4b). Due to its shape, MT induces high strain levels in bone at around 60% of the insertion process. In contrast, the strain values for SCI show a more continuous increase, with a decrease only occurring during the final stages of the insertion process when the implant was placed subcrestally, reducing contact with the cortical bone layer. The continuous rise in strain for SCI is likely due to its increasing diameter, which expands the osteotomy and causes higher strain in the surrounding areas of bone. This is exemplified in the  
Figure 5: Evolution of maximum strain at the cross-sectional area of the cut bone over implants’ displacement during insertion, including smoothed mean values (solid lines, moving average with 20 points) and standard deviations (shaded) at the position of the three elements in Figure 3b. continuous rise in the maximum strain value (SCI) determined from three selected elements representing buccal bone (Figures 3 and 5) as a function of insertion depth. In contrast, the final insertion of the MT implant reduced the strain induced in its surroundings. Figure 6: [PERSON] stress map of the interaction of the SCI implant with the osteotomy walls at different insertion distances. All units in the scale bars are MPa. Figure 7: [PERSON] stress map of the interaction of the MT implant with the osteotomy walls at different insertion distances. All units in the figures are MPa. The volume of the bone damaged and removed by the MT implant exhibits a cylindrical and relatively denser geometry (Figure 8d), while the bone removed by the implant SCI resembles a truncated cone with its base in the cortical area and the cutting threads clearly visible (Figure 8c). As shown in Figure 9a, the volume of drilled bone increases more steadily with insertion time for the MT implant as compared to the SCI implant, which gradually removes more bone, as indicated by the gradient of the curve.