## 3 Results
When analyzing the relationship between the clinician's tactile bone quality assessment and the various patient-related and intraoperative variables in each of the implant macro geometry groups, an indirect significant association was found for the conical implant group in the insertion torque (rho = \(-\)0.403; \(p\) < 0.001) and the bone density (r = \(-\)3.73; \(p\) = 0.002). The cylindrical implants group also displayed an indirect significant association with the insertion torque (rho = \(-\)0.366; \(p\) = 0.026) but not for the bone density (r = 0.062; \(p\) = 0.716). When analyzing the association between insertion torque and ISQ, a strong positive correlation was identified in the conical implant group (rho = 0.554; \(p\) < 0.001) but not with the cylindrical implants (rho = 0.214; \(p\) = 0.203). A Mann-Whitney test revealed that the cylindrical implant group displayed a significantly higher insertion torque than the conical implants (U = 748; \(p\) < 0.001) (Table 3). The cylindrical implants showed a significantly higher ISQ on the day of the surgery (U = 766.50; \(p\) = 0.0002) and after three months (U = 689.50; \(p\) < 0.001). The clinician's tactile sensation revealed a significantly softer bone when using conical implants (CHI2 = 22.2; \(p\) = 0.001). However, the bone density analysis did not confirm the difference in bone density when using cylindrical or conical implants (\(t\) = 1.481; \(p\) = 0.142). The descriptive data and comparisons of the patient-related and intraoperative variables in the distinct implant locations (the incisor-canine and bicuspid-molar regions) are summarized in Table 4. No significant differences were found when comparing the insertion torque, the ISQ on the day of the surgery (Figure 4), and the clinician's tactile evaluation of bone density according to the implant location. In contrast, the ISQ values recorded after three months were significantly higher in the bicuspid-molar area in the cylindric implant group (U = 88.50; \(p\) = 0.002) (Figure 5). Significantly higher bone densities were found in the incisor-canine area for the conical and cylindrical implants (t = 3.00; \(p\) = 0.005 and t = 3.99; \(p\) < 0.001, respectively). Figure 3: Bar chart representing medians of insertion torque (N \(\times\) cm), implant stability quotient at the moment of the surgery, and implant stability after three months depending on the implant macro design. Confidence intervals were set at \(p\) = 0.05. Figure 4: Bar chart representing medians of implant stability quotients at the moment of surgery according to macro-design and location. Confidence intervals were set at \(p\) = 0.05. When studying the effects of arch location (maxilla or mandible) (Table 5), significantly higher ISQ values on the day of the surgery and greater bone densities were demonstrated for the mandible when using the conical implants (U \(<\) 0286; \(p\) = 0.005 and t = \(-\)2.578; \(p\) = 0.012, respectively). It is also remarkable that the insertion torque was higher in the maxilla when using the conical implants (U = 315; \(p\) = 0.010), the ISQ recorded on the day of the surgery and after three months was higher, and the bone density was higher in the maxilla when using the cylindrical implants (U = 131; \(p\) < 0.001, U = 202; \(p\) = 0.006, and t = 2.314; \(p\) = 0.024, respectively). Figure 5: Bar chart representing medians of implant stabilities after three months according to macro-design and location. Confidence intervals were set at \(p\) = 0.05.