## 3 Results  
The sample of recruited participants (March to September 2019) was composed of 30 participants, and a total of 55 dental implants were placed, a similar mean age of 50.0 \(\pm\) 6.9 and 51.7 \(\pm\) 9.3 for G1 and G2, respectively (\(p\) > 0.05). The distribution and sites were presented in Table 2. The mean grey values in each region of the implantation site are shown in Table 3. It is possible to see a homogeneous distribution of BD values in both groups (\(p\) > 0.05).  
Figure 3: (**A**) Dental implant geometry and threads visualized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (\(\times\)29) (Quanta 250, FEI Company, OR, USA); (**B**) SEM of the dental implant surface (\(\times\)250)—space between the implant and bone interface exemplifying the “healing chamber” (H.C.) hypothesis with the wider implant bed preparation via osseodensification.  
The CONSORT chart of participant flow is shown in Figure 4, from the 55 implants, four implants in G2 had low IT and were excluded from the study since they were replaced by wider implants. In G1, one implant was excluded due to the same reason. The implant survival after six months was 100% for both groups (\(p>0.05\)); however, considering the implant-stability parameters to allow immediate restoration, the osseedensification group (G1) exhibited 96.6% success, and the standard drilling group (G2) exhibited 86.6% success (\(p<0.001\)). There was no change in the original trial outcomes and no postoperative complications (such as wound dehiscence and infection) occurred during the follow-up period in both groups.  
Even with larger final diameter osteotomy of G1, higher IT values (39.0 \(\pm\) 6.4 Ncm) were observed when compared to the standard undersized drilling protocol (32.0 \(\pm\) 3.4 Ncm) (\(p<0.001\)). Although ISQ values after 6 months healing were higher than those at the time of implant insertion for both groups (\(p<0.001\)), no significant difference was identified when comparing both groups at each time point (\(p>0.05\)) (Figure 5).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Participants (\(n\) = 30)** & **Groups** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{G1 (\(n\) = 14)} & G2 (\(n\) = 16) \\ \hline Gender & \\ \hline Male & 4 & 3 \\ \hline Female & 10 & 13 \\ \hline Age (years), mean \(\pm\) SD & \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{50.0 \(\pm\) 6.9} & \(51.7\pm 9.3\) \\ \hline Implant placement (\(n\) = 55) & \\ \hline First premolar & 3 & 6 \\ Second premolar & 7 & 3 \\ \hline Canine & 6 & 7 \\ \hline Central incisor & 13 & 10 \\ \hline Education Level & \\ \hline High school diploma & 8 (6 Female and 2 Male) & 9 (8 Female and 1 Male) \\ \hline Bachelor’s degree & 6 (4 Female and 2 Male) & 7 (6 Female and 1 Male) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{SD = Standard deviation.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Socio-demographic data of the patients included in the study.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Patients** & **Implants Areas** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Bone Density**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Cervical** & **Body** & **Apical** & **Mean** \\ \hline
**Osseedensification + healing chamber** & 14 & 29 & 529 \(\pm\) 226 & 389 \(\pm\) 255 & 433 \(\pm\) 207 & 450 \(\pm\) 171 \\ \hline
**Standard undersized** & 16 & 26 & 483 \(\pm\) 181 & 410 \(\pm\) 213 & 481 \(\pm\) 198 & 458 \(\pm\) 115 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(p\)**-value**} & & 0.420 & 0.744 & 0.398 & 0.852 \\ \hline \end{tabular} No significant difference was identified between the groups (\(p>0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 3: The number of patients and implants in each group with respective mean bone density (\(\pm\) sd) at cervical, body, and apical regions of implantation sites.