## 4 Discussion
The study compared parameters such as bone-implant contact (BIC) and bone volume (BV) between the test group, which underwent osteocondensation preparation, and the control group, which received the osteeosubtractive technique. The results highlighted the advantages of osteocondensation in terms of achieving superior BIC and BV outcomes compared with the osteeosubtractive technique. The study reported a statistically significant difference in the percentage of BIC between the two groups, with the tester group achieving higher BIC values compared with thecontrol group. Additionally, the BV in the tester group showed an increase of approximately 30% compared with the control group. Histological analysis of the samples supported the findings of [PERSON] et al., indicating that the healing process is facilitated by bone compaction and that bone density can increase around the implant's surface, particularly in the coronal portion. The test group exhibited a high presence of mineralization nuclei surrounded by osteoid tissue and osteoblasts. This evidence suggests that, thanks to the mineralization nuclei, the bone may have the ability to increase its density over the long term, thus contributing to the preservation of secondary implant stability [22]. In an in vivo study conducted on sheep by [PERSON] et al., the effectiveness of osteecondensation drills was emphasized. The study paid specific attention to histomorphometric analysis, which revealed a percentage increase in values such as the BIC and bone area fraction occupied (BAFO) when the osteecondensation technique was utilized [30]. [PERSON] et al. evaluated 110 osteotomies performed on 30 coronal sections of pig tibae (Maxylar(r), Girona, Spain) using two different techniques: under-preparation (UD) and osteecondensation (OD). The authors compared various parameters associated with implant stability, including insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ). The study found that implants inserted using the osteecondensation technique (OD) exhibited significantly higher values of primary stability when compared with the under-preparation technique (UD). The average implant insertion torque in the osteodensification group was 8.87 \(\pm\) 6.17 N/cm in the control group (UD) and 21.72 \(\pm\) 17.14 Ncm in the test group (OD). Similarly, the mean ISQ values were 65.16 \(\pm\) 7.45 kHz in the control group and 69.75 \(\pm\) 6.79 kHz in the test group. The study reported significant differences between the groups in terms of ISQ values and implant insertion torque [4]. In a study conducted by [PERSON] et al. in 2020, a single-blind, multi-center controlled clinical study was carried out with 56 enrolled patients requiring prosthetic rehabilitation with a minimum of two implants. The study involved the placement of implants of various lengths and types (narrow, regular, and wide) in the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla and mandible. The preparation of implant sites in each patient was performed using two different techniques: the osteodensifying technique and the osteobtractive technique. The study evaluated the values of IT at the time of implant placement and ISQ recorded using RFA at three stages: immediately after surgery, at 3 weeks, and at 6 weeks. The statistical analysis revealed a significant increase in the implant IT value when the site preparation was performed using the osteecondensation technique (60 \(\pm\) 3.4 Ncm) compared with the osteosubtractive preparation (35 \(\pm\) 3.4 Ncm). Additionally, ISQ data showed higher values for the experimental group at all evaluation time points. Specifically, the experimental group had higher ISQ values (I: 73 \(\pm\) 2.0, 3 W: 70 \(\pm\) 2.0, and 6 W: 74 \(\pm\) 1.5) compared with the control group (I: 62 \(\pm\) 2.0, 3 W: 59 \(\pm\) 2.0, and 6 W: 66 \(\pm\) 1.5), regardless of the time of evaluation [31]. Evidence from various related studies demonstrates the significant advantages of using osteecondensation drills.