## 3 Results
The primary stability linear regression model studied using the ISQ0 as the dependent variable produced very significant results (F = 12.589; \(p<0.001\)), although it only predicted 27.8% of the results for the ISQ on the day of the surgery according to the coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)). Therefore, as a baseline, an average ISQ of 74.8 \(\pm\) 7.79 was obtained on the day of the surgery at the incisor-canine area, and for each applied extra Ncm in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups (n)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cylindrical**} & **Conical** & **U** & \multirow{2}{*}{_p-Value_} \\  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & \(t\) \\  & & **Median (MR)** & **Median (IR)** & **CH\({}^{2}\)** & \\  & & \(n\) (\%) & **(\%)** & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Insertion torque (Ncm)} & Standard & \multirow{3}{*}{47.50 (11.25)} & \multirow{3}{*}{37.50 (20)} & \multirow{3}{*}{U 154.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.13} \\  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & & Long & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(>\)10 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ U (\(p\)-value) & & \multirow{3}{*}{169 (0.950)} & \multirow{3}{*}{441.50 (0.266)} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & & Standard & \multirow{3}{*}{78 (11.85)} & \multirow{3}{*}{73.80 (38.40)} & \multirow{3}{*}{U 182} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.061} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ U (\(p\)-value) & & \multirow{3}{*}{79 (9)} & \multirow{3}{*}{77 (25)} & \multirow{3}{*}{U 194.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.012 \({}^{*}\)} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=48\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ U (\(p\)-value) & & \multirow{3}{*}{84.50 (5.10)} & \multirow{3}{*}{78.80 (9)} & \multirow{3}{*}{U 151.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.012 \({}^{*}\)} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ U (\(p\)-value) & & \multirow{3}{*}{81.30 (7)} & \multirow{3}{*}{78.60 (5.30)} & \multirow{3}{*}{U 201.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.018 \({}^{*}\)} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=48\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ U (\(p\)-value) & & \multirow{3}{*}{130.50 (0.216)} & \multirow{3}{*}{500.50 (0.747)} & \multirow{3}{*}{CH\({}^{2}\) 9.719} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.021 \({}^{*}\)} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=48\)) & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Tactile evaluation \\ of bone quality \\ (D1-D4 Range) \\ \end{tabular} } & Standard & \multirow{3}{*}{81 (17.65\%)} & \multirow{3}{*}{30 (29.41\%)} & \multirow{3}{*}{CH\({}^{2}\) 9.719} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.021 \({}^{*}\)} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & Long & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(>\)10 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ CH\({}^{2}\) (\(p\)-value) & & \multirow{3}{*}{19 (18.63\%)} & \multirow{3}{*}{35 (34.31\%)} & \multirow{3}{*}{CH\({}^{2}\) 2.746} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.601} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ Bone density & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Standard \\ (\(\leq\)10 mm) (\(n=48\)) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{663.19 \(\pm\) 166.58} & \multirow{3}{*}{645.83 \(\pm\) 217.66} & \multirow{3}{*}{_t_ 0.291} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.773} \\ (HU) & Long & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6}  & (\(>\)0 mm) (\(n=54\)) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{\(t\) (\(p\)-value)} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(-\)1.255 (0.218)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.120 (0.905)} \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Effects of implant length on the patient-related and intraoperative variables of stability and bone density according to the Student’s \(t\)-test, [PERSON]–Whitney’s non-parametric test, or [PERSON]’s Chi-square test (\(n=102\) implants). \({}^{*}\) denotes significant differences (\(p<0.05\)).