## 3 Results
This is a consequence of the faster diameter increase in the apical part of the MT implant, which accordingly cuts more bone material than the implant SCI, particularly in the trabecular bone region, as shown in Figure 9b. It must be noted that the link between the amount of bone removed during the insertion simulation and clinical implant stability is not obvious. In contrast to the damage model used in the simulation, the bone chips would not simply vanish in reality but be compacted in the implant-bone interface. We interpret the larger amount of bone removed as evidence for a stronger interaction with the trabecular region. This aligns with the design purpose of the novel MT implant, which achieves primary stability by predominantly engaging trabecular bone [17; 20]. Figure 8: Final positioning of the implant SCI (**a**), and MT (**b**) in the bone, and the corresponding drilled bone volume as observed for implant SCI (**c**), and MT (**d**), respectively. Figure 10a,b illustrate the stress distribution along a path at 1.2 mm distance from the osteotomy wall for different insertion depths of the implants, at the position shown in Figure 3a. Both figures indicate that the stress level in the cortical bone is higher than in the trabecular bone due to differences in yield points and stiffness. Therefore, a sudden drop in von Mises stress is observed at a true distance of 2.54 mm, which corresponds to the interface between the cortical and trabecular bone. Figure 10 also demonstrates that when the implants interact solely with the cortical bone (within the displacement ranges of 2-4.2 mm for SCI and 1.2-3.2 mm for MT), stress can be transferred from the cortical bone to the trabecular bone (Figure 10a,b and stress distribution maps in Figures 6 and 7). The stress level in trabecular bone generally increases as the implants approach it, as indicated by the red arrows in Figure 10a,b. The stress level in the cortical bone increases as the implants penetrate further; the trabecular bone helps to reduce the stress in the cortical bone at some points. For instance,  
Figure 10: Von Mises stress along the true distance when (**a**) implant SCI and (**b**) implant MT have been inserted to increasing depths (indicated in mm in the legends) in the bone. Figure 9: (**a**) Comparison of removed bone volume for MT and SCI implants as a function of step time. (**b**) Final cortical and trabecular bone volumes removed by the two implant types. when the SCI implant interacts with the trabecular bone at a displacement of 4.2 mm, the stress in the cortical bone is relatively lower compared to the stress at 4 mm. This observation further supports the idea that the trabecular bone aids in redistributing stress within the cortical bone layer, similar to a sandwich structure in engineering. Reaction moments were analyzed to evaluate the resisting torques throughout the insertion process. As shown in Figure 11, the results fluctuate due to the dynamic nature of the insertion process and potential element deletion procedures, similar to [PERSON] 2017 [19]. To indicate the trend, the data was smoothed by adjacent averaging over 5 points. Due to the more gradual diameter increase along its length of the SCI implant, resistance to the insertion begins later compared to the MT implant. The moment increases monotonically to a much higher value of t 300 Nmm (as compared to 80 Nmm for the MT implant). At 6 mm insertion, the bulky part of the MT implant completes penetration of the cortical bone layer, temporarily reaching the maximum reaction moment. Beyond this point, the reduced stress in the cortical layer is almost compensated by the increased stress in the trabecular region, leading to a nearly constant torque. As the implant MT continues to interact with trabecular bone, the reaction moment gradually increases again. The absolute values of the reaction moments found here are about 25-40% smaller than in comparable experimental [18] and simulation studies [19].