## 1 Introduction  
According to statistics from the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, approximately 70% of adults between the ages of 35 and 44 can lose at least one permanent tooth due to trauma, periodontal, or endodontic complications [1]. Approximately 5 million dental implants are being placed every year in the United States of America as per the American Dental Association, with a elevated rate of success (<90%), with low risk and/or complication [2]. Currently, dental implants are used as an alternative in rehabilitative treatments with a good degree of predictability. Several clinical studies have shown good results in treatments in long-term follow-up patients of unitary, partial, or totally edentulous areas [3; 4; 5]. Despite this, several companies and research centers have invested in the improvement of implants mainly seeking to reduce the time and/or improve the healing of the bone tissue around the implanted surface. However, many events involved in the osseointegration process have not yet been completely elucidated.  
Several investigations to improve or accelerate the process of osseointegration have been studied, as well worked on to elaborate new treatments for the surface of the implants (micro topography) with different physical and chemical characteristics [5; 6; 7; 8; 9]. These modifications have shown good results, mainly in pre-clinical studies, as reported in the literature [10; 11; 12; 13].  
The surgical technique used to elaborate the osteotomy and the macrogeometry of the implant is also a factor considered of great importance in the process of osseointegration. Several models with different macrogeometries and surface treatment have been proposed and are commercialized [14; 15; 16], with each design following its specific recommendations as to the type of bone where it should be used and the specific surgical technique for its installation [17]. Conventionally, osteotomy is performed with the last drill having a smaller diameter in relation to the implant diameter, so that it is inserted with a high degree of torque. Obviously, the more sub-dimensioned the bed receiving the implant is, the greater the insertion torque. However, it is speculated that high levels of torque can cause a high compression in the bone tissue, which can lead to extensive bone remodeling over time [18]. Several other studies have shown that depending on the insertion torque of the implant and whether it is beyond the physiological tolerance limit, it may present microfractures or osteonecrosis by compression [19; 20; 21].  
Recently, studies have proposed that approaching the diameter of the drilling (during the osteotomy) with the diameter of the implant that will be inserted into the bone, can facilitate and improve osseointegration [22; 23]. This fact was demonstrated by [PERSON] and collaborators in a study using a dog animal model, where, in the implants placed with high torque, the samples presented a certain amount of necrotic bone inside the implant threads, whereas in the samples where a larger drilling was used, the samples presented a substantial formation of new bone [23]. In this case, the free space created inside the implant threads, resulting from the drill-implant diameter ratio, is called the healing chambers (Figure 1).  
Within the consistence of these concepts of the \"no bone compression\" during the implant installation in the bone tissue, a new implant design with decompression chambers in the threads to improve and accelerate the osseointegration process, was analyzed and compared with a conventional implant macrogeometry, both implants models with and without surface treatment. Histological and biomechanical analyses were performed using the rabbit tibia experimental model. The hypothesis was that the chambers created in the threads can promote decompression of the bone during introduction in the osteotomy and, then, a positive effect on the osseointegration.