## 3 Results  
Fifty-three patients (22 women and 31 men, with a mean age of 56.6 years \(\pm\) 10.1) were included in this study (Table 1). One hundred and two implants were placed (43 in the mandible and 59 in the maxilla). Sixty-five conical implants (32 3i T3 implants (31.4%), 33 Nobel Active implants (32.4%)), and thirty-seven cylindrical implants (37 Nobel Parallel implants (36.3%)) were placed in 53 patients. The implants were also grouped according to their location in the arch: the incisor-canine group included 36 implants (21 conical and 15 cylindrical implants), and the bicuspid-molar group included 66 implants (44 conical and 22 cylindrical implants). The distributions of the implants in this study according to length and diameter are also shown in Table 1. The distribution, correlation, analysis of the insertion torque, ISQ0, ISQ3, clinician's tactile bone quality assessment, and bone density, together with their relationship for each studied macro geometry, are shown in Tables 2 and 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Patient-Related Variables (_n_ = 53)**} & **Groups** & \(n\) (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gender} & Women & 22 (41.1\%) \\ \cline{2-4}  & Men & 31 (58.5\%) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Age (years)} & \(\leq\)55 years & 27 (50.9\%) \\ \cline{2-4}  & \(>\)55 years & 26 (49.1\%) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Average age in years (mean \(\pm\) SD)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{56.6 \(\pm\)10.1} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Mandible & 43 (42.2\%) \\ \cline{2-4}  & Maximla & 59 (57.8\%) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Implant location in the arch} & Incisors–canines & 36 (35.3\%) \\ \cline{2-4}  & Bicuspids–molars & 66 (64.7\%) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Implant-related variables (_n_ = 102)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Implant macro-design} & Conical & Cylindrical \\ \cline{2-4}  & Variables & \(n\) & \% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Macrogeometry design} & 65 & 63.7\% & 37 & 36.3\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Incisors–canines & 21 & 20.59\% & 15 & 14.70\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Bicuspids–molars & 44 & 43.14\% & 22 & 21.57\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Implant diameter} & Standard (<4.5 mm) & 55 & 53.92\% & 36 & 35.29\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Wide (\(\geq\)4.5 mm) & 10 & 9.80\% & 1 & 0.98\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Implant length} & Standard (\(\leq\)10 mm) & 30 & 29.41\% & 18 & 17.65\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Long (\(>\)10 mm) & 35 & 34.31\% & 19 & 18.63\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Baseline demographic and clinical data of patients and implants (_n_ = 53 patients, \(n\) = 102 implants). Without dividing the data based on the implant macro geometry group (\(n\) = 102 implants), a significant relationship was found between the clinician's tactile bone quality assessment and the bone density, insertion torque, and ISQ values on the day of the surgery (Table 2, Figure 3). An indirect significant correlation was found between the clinician's tactile bone quality assessment, the insertion torque values (rho = \(-\)0.425; \(p\) < 0.001), and the ISQ values on the day of the surgery (rho = \(-\)0.245; \(p\) = 0.013). In other words, higher insertion torque and ISQ values were recorded when the clinician perceived  
* Statistically significant differences after Spearman or Pearson coefficient. Coefficients above r = 0.40 are highlighted in light grey. \end{table}
Table 2: Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation coefficient (r) between the patient-related and intraoperative variables of stability and bone density in the two types of macro geometries of implants (\(n\) = 102 implants). the bone as hard (D1-type bone). Additionally, a significant inverse association was identified between the clinician's tactile bone quality assessment and the bone density (in HU) (r = \(-\)0.273; \(p\) = 0.005). In contrast, no statistical significance was revealed between the clinician's tactile bone quality assessment and ISQ after 3 months (rho = \(-\)0.035; \(p\) = 0.728).