## 3 Results  
In total, 48 implant sites (12 for each group) were prepared, and 48 fixtures were inserted to evaluate the Cp, Cm, I, and ISQ. An expert investigator performed the implant placement, blinded to other study aspects. All implants in group A failed to complete positioning inside the osteotomic site, with the neck of implants remaining outside the foam blocks (Figure 3b). The highest values of implant stability parameters were reported from Group C (implants positioned in an osteotomic site prepared at 14 mm depth in densifying mode). In contrast, the lowest values were reported in Group A (implants positioned in an osteotomic site prepared at 12 mm depth in densifying mode). The results of the descriptive analysis are summarized in Table 1.  
Figure 4: Example of a torque–depth plot displayed by the micromotor at implant insertion.  
No outliers were detected, and the assumption of normality, assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test, was not violated. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction for multiple analyses revealed statistical differences in the ISQ between groups A and C (\(p\) = 0.001) and A and D (\(p\) = 0.035); in the Cm between groups A and B (\(p\) = 0.014), A and C (\(p\) < 0.001), A and D (\(p\) < 0.001), groups B and C (\(p\) < 0.001) and groups C and D (\(p\) = 0.04); in the Cp between groups A and B (\(p\) < 0.001), A and C (\(p\) < 0.001), groups B and D (\(p\) < 0.001), and groups C and D (\(p\) = 0.040); and in the I between groups A and B (\(p\) = 0.005), A and C (\(p\) < 0.001), A and D (\(p\) < 0.001), groups B and C (\(p\) < 0.001), and groups C and D (\(p\) = 0.006) (Table 2).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dependent Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(I) Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(J) Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean Difference (I–J)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Std. Error**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sig.**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & & & & **Lower Bound** & & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{ISQ} & A & B & \(-\)0.85833 & 0.46067 & 0.252 & \(-\)0.658 & 0.3492 \\ \cline{2-10}  & A & C & \(-\)1.90833 * & 0.48315 & 0.001 & \(-\)3.1748 & \(-\)0.6419 \\ \cline{2-10}  & D & \(-\)1.33333 * & 0.48315 & 0.035 & \(-\)2.5998 & \(-\)0.0669 \\ \cline{2-10}  & & A & 0.85833 & 0.46067 & 0.252 & \(-\)0.3492 & 2.0658 \\ \cline{2-10}  & B & C & \(-\)1.05000 & 0.48315 & 0.139 & \(-\)2.3164 & 0.2164 \\ \cline{2-10}  & D & \(-\)0.47500 & 0.48315 & 0.759 & \(-\)1.7414 & 0.7914 \\ \cline{2-10}  & C & A & 1.90833 * & 0.48315 & 0.001 & 0.6419 & 3.1748 \\ \cline{2-10}  & C & B & 1.05000 & 0.48315 & 0.139 & \(-\)0.2164 & 2.3164 \\ \cline{2-10}  & D & 0.57500 & 0.50463 & 0.666 & \(-\)0.7478 & 1.8978 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: One-way ANOVA comparing the mean values (ISQ), average torque (Cm), peak torque (Cp), and integral depth curve (I) in the four groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dependent Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(I) Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(J) Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean Difference (I–J)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Std. Error**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sig.**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & & & & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{ISQ} & A & B & \(-\)0.85833 & 0.46067 & 0.252 & \(-\)2.0658 & 0.3492 \\ \cline{2-10}  & A & C & \(-\)1.90833 * & 0.48315 & 0.001 & \(-\)3.1748 & \(-\)0.6419 \\ \cline