## 3 Results
The ISQ values on the day of the surgery (ISQ0) and after 3 months (ISQ3) were considered as the dependent variables in the linear regression analysis. Implant-related factors (implant macro geometry, length, width, dental arch, and implant location in the arch), intraoperative factors (bone density determined subjectively based on the clinician's tactile perception, ISQ0, and insertion torque), and patient-related factors (age, gender, and bone density determined objectively based on the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)) were firstly assessed as the independent variables. Still, only significant predictors were considered in the final linear regression analysis. The predictor variables used in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Groups (a)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Cylindrical** \\ **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ **Median (IR)** \\ **n (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Conical** \\ **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ **Median (IR)** \\ **n (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **U** \\ **Median (IR)** \\ **n (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **p-Value** \\ **CHI\({}^{2}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Insertion torque (Ncm)} & Standard (\(\sphericalangle\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 91) & 45 (10) & 40 (10) & U 665.50 & 0.008 * \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 35 & 27.5 (18.75) & \\ \hline U (\(p\)-value) & & & 126.5 (0.006 *) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ISQ day of surgery (ISQ units)} & Standard (\(\sphericalangle\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 91) & 78.80 (8.92) & 76.3 (8.10) & U 667 & 0.009 * \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 82.30 & 68.95 (15.20) & \\ \hline U (\(p\)-value) & & & 264 (0.841) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ISQ 3 months (ISQ units)} & Standard (\(\sphericalangle\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 91) & 84(5.90) & 79 (6) & U 537.50 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 77.00 & 76.80 (9.17) & \\ \hline U (\(p\)-value) & & & 264 (0.841) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Tactile evaluation of bone quality (DI-D4 range) \\ \end{tabular} } & Standard (\(\sphericalangle\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 91) & 36 (35.29\%) & 55 (53.92\%) & CHI\({}^{2}\) 6.046 & 0.196 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 1 (0.98\%) & 10 (9.80\%) & \\ \hline Chi\({}^{2}\) (\(p\)-value) & & & 20.93 (\textless{}0.001 *) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Bone density (HU)} & Standard (\(\sphericalangle\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 91) & 697.57 \(\pm\) 161.10 & 677.27 \(\pm\) 195.49 & \(t\) 0.518 & 0.606 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 662.50 & 451.25 \(\pm\) 155.73 & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 662.50 & 451.25 \(\pm\) 155.73 & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  &
\begin{tabular}{c} Wide \\ (\(\geq\)4.5 \(\mathcal{O}\)); (\(n\) = 11) \\ \end{tabular} & 3.454 (\textless{}0.001 *) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Effects of implant diameter on the patient-related and intraoperative variables of stability and bone density according to the Student’s \(t\)-test, [PERSON]’s non-parametric test, or Pearson Chi-square test (\(n\) = 102 implants). * denotes significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05). the ISQ measured on the day of the surgery (ISQ0) in the linear regression analysis were the insertion torque, length, and implant macro design. For the ISQ measured after three months of osseointegration (ISQ3), the predictors were location, implant macro design, and age. (Table 8).