## 3 Results  
The study findings showed a significant difference of the IT values between both the test and control implant groups positioned in polyurethane substrates conditions (\(p<0.01\)) (Figure 6). The IT of the test Implants showed a significant increase in higher bone densities.  
The dental implants of the control group did not show statistically significant differences of the insertion torque and pull out torque means when positioned in 1 and 2 mm  
Figure 5: Control Group: RFA measurement of the implant positioned in the polyurethane block. The evaluation was repeated two times for each measurement. (**A**) Dental implant micromovement evaluation through the RFA implant stability. (**B**) Detail of the measurement of the implant stability quotient (ISQ).  
Figure 6: Insertion Torque Values for Test Implants and Control Implants in different polyurethane block conditions.  
bone thicknesses (10 and 20 PCF) blocks (\(p\) > 0.05). A significant increase of IT and PO was reported with the implant positioned in 2 mm/30 PCF lamina and 3 mm/30 PCF lamina (\(p\) < 0.01). In both groups, the insertion torque values were higher than the pull-out torque values (\(p\) < 0.01) (Figures 6 and 7) (Tables 1 and 2).  
As for the RFA analyses (Figure 8), the measurements were compared following the linear regression scatter plot and the Bland-Altman model (Figures 8-10). The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.98 (95% CI 4.08 to 4.68) and the agreement analysis showed that the mean difference between measurements was \(-\)0.30. The Bland-Altman plot showed the differences between the RFA measurements and their limits of agreement (Figure 9). Intergroup RFA measurement showed the highest values in the test Implants when compared to the control implants in all experimental densities and block thicknesses (\(p\) < 0.01) (Figure 8). Intragroup evaluation of the test implants showed an increase of the ISQ values related to the increase of the block thicknesses and densities in all conditions (\(p\) < 0.01). Control implants showed lower values of ISQ at 2 mm 10 PCF, with a significant increase at higher bone densities (\(p\) < 0.05) (Figure 9).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{13}{c}{**1 MM Polyurethane**} & \multicolumn{13}{c}{**2 MM Polyurethane**} & \multicolumn{13}{c}{**3 MM Polyurethane**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**30 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**30 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 PCF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**30 PCF**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} \\ \hline Min & 5 & 15 & 8 & 20 & 5 & 15 & 8 & 20 & 18 & 35 & 4 & 12 & 6 & 23 & 15 & 43 \\ Max & 8 & 20 & 12 & 25 & 10 & 20 & 12 & 25 & 22 & 40 & 6 & 22 & 12 & 28 & 22 & 48 \\ Range & 3 & 5 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 5 & 4 Figure 8: RFA values for Test Implants and Control Implants in different experimental conditions.  
Figure 10: Scatter Plot about the agreement of ISQ measurement for each sample showing the variability of the repeated measurements.  
Figure 9: Bland–Altman Plot about the agreement of ISQ measurement for each sample. The mean difference was estimated bias, and the SD of the differences measured the random fluctuations around this mean.