## 3 Results
### RT Values  
RT values for Due Cone implants were significantly higher than those for Maestro implants only in the 30 PCF density block (2.74 \(\pm\) 0.05 Ncm and 1.90 \(\pm\) 0.26 Ncm, respectively, with a \(p\) < 0.0001). No differences were observed between the two implants in the 10, 20, and 40 PCF density blocks. Significantly higher RT values were found for both Due Cone and Maestro implants when comparing the 10 PCF density block to the other blocks (\(p\) < 0.0001 for Due Cone implants; \(p\) < 0.0001 vs. 20 and 40 PCF density blocks, and \(p\) < 0.05 vs. 30 PCF density block for Maestro implants). Additionally, both implants displayed the highest RT values in the 40 PCF density block (3.94 \(\pm\) 0.05 Ncm for Due Cone implants and 3.70 \(\pm\) 0.28 Ncm for Maestro implants), which were significantly higher compared to values registered for the same implants in 20 and 30 PCF density blocks (\(p\) < 0.01 and \(p\) < 0.0001, respectively, for Due Cone implants; \(p\) < 0.0001 for Maestro implants). Contrarily, both \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons Test** & **95.00\% CI of Difference** & **Adjusted \(p\)-Value** & **Summary** \\ \hline A–B & \(-\)51.46 to \(-\)37.74 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ A–C & \(-\)33.26 to \(-\)19.54 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ A–D & \(-\)58.46 to \(-\)44.74 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ A–E & \(-\)6.362 to 7.362 & \(>\)0.9999 & ns \\ A–F & \(-\)47.06 to \(-\)33.34 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ A–G & \(-\)25.16 to \(-\)11.44 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ A–H & \(-\)43.06 to \(-\)29.34 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ B–C & 11.34 to 25.06 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ B–D & \(-\)13.86 to \(-\)0.1380 & 0.0429 & * \\ B-E & 38.24 to 51.96 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ B–F & \(-\)2.462 to 11.26 & 0.4500 & ns \\ B–G & 19.44 to 33.16 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ B-H & 1.538 to 15.26 & 0.0082 & ** \\ C–D & \(-\)32.06 to \(-\)18.34 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ C–E & 20.04 to 33.76 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ C–F & \(-\)20.66 to \(-\)6.938 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ C–G & 1.238 to 14.96 & 0.0118 & * \\ C–H & \(-\)16.66 to \(-\)29.398 & 0.0014 & ** \\ D–E & 45.24 to 58.96 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ D–F & 4.538 to 18.26 & 0.0002 & *** \\ D-G & 26.44 to 40.16 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ D–H & 8.538 to 22.26 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ E–F & \(-\)47.56 to \(-\)33.84 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ E-G & \(-\)25.66 to \(-\)11.94 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ E–H & \(-\)43.56 to \(-\)29.84 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ F-G & 15.04 to 28.76 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ F–H & \(-\)28.862 to 10.86 & 0.5683 & ns \\ G–H & \(-\)24.76 to \(-\)11.04 & \(<\)0.0001 & *** \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)\(p\) < 0.05; \({}^{\star\star}\)\(p\) < 0.01; \({}^{\star\star\star}\)\(p\) < 0.0001; \({}^{\star\star\star}\)\(p\) < 0.0001.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Summary of Insertion Torque (IT) multiple comparisons among all experimental groups. Due Cone implants inserted in (A) 10 pounds per cubic foot (PCF), (B) 20 PCF, (C) 30 PCF, (D) and 40 PCF density blocks compared to Maestro implants in (E) 10 PCF, (F) 20 PCF, (G) 30 PCF, (H) and 40 PCF density blocks. CI: Confidence Interval; ns: not significant. Figure 7: Bar graph reporting IT values of Due Cone and Maestro implants across all polyurethane foam densities. implants expressed the lowest RT values in the 10 PCF density block (1.28 \(\pm\) 0.08 Ncm for Due Cone implants and 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.33 Ncm for Maestro implants). Moreover, significantly higher RT values were observed in the 20 PCF density block compared to the 30 PCF density block for both implants (3.36 \(\pm\) 0.26 Ncm and 2.74 \(\pm\) 0.05 Ncm, respectively, with a \(p\)! 0.0001 for Due Cone implants; 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.19 Ncm and 1.90 \(\pm\) 0.26 Ncm, respectively, with a \(p\)! 0.0001 for Maestro implants) (Figure 8). In Table 2, Confidence Intervals and \(p\)-values have been reported for each intergroup comparison. However, both implants displayed significantly higher ISQ values (_p_ < 0.0001) when inserted into the 40 PCF density block compared to the 10 PCF density block in both orientations.