## 1 Introduction  
Over the last 25 years, osseointegrated oral implantology has had a significant impact on the practice of dentistry, particularly in the field of prosthetic rehabilitation. In implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, the evaluation of bone density is always considered a key element in achieving primary implant stability [1]. Osseedensification burs are proposed in the scientific community as a surgical technique to increase the bone density in edentulous areas [2]. Ossoeintegration is a functional biological-mechanical interaction determined at the bone-implant interface level, avoiding the interposition of poorly organized fibroblast tissue. The neoformation of compact and organized lamellar bone enables implant integration and defines its secondary stability [3]. The biological processes underlying osseointegration significantly depend on the primary implant stability achieved during fixture insertion, defined as the biomechanical engagement between bone and implant. This allows the implant to mechanically interlock with the bone tissue until secondary stability is attained. The role of osseedensification in dental implant stability has gained increasing attention, as evidenced by recent studies. [PERSON] et al. (2021) and [PERSON] et al. (2020) emphasized its effectiveness in enhancing primary stability, especially in low-density bone [4; 5]. This is complemented by findings from [PERSON] et al. (2021) and [PERSON] et al. (2023), who demonstrated the correlation between drilling protocols and implant stability [6; 7]. During the preparation of osteotomy, the preservation and maintenance of bone play critical roles in achieving improved primary mechanical stability and bone-implant contact (BIC), ultimately enhancing the implant's secondary stability [5]. The attainment of primary stability is directly influenced by factors such as implant macro-geometry, the surgical technique employed, and the quality of the bone in the edentulous site, including bone density and trabecular architecture. While the operator has control over the first two factors, bone quality and density significantly impact the achievement of primary stability [8]. To validate implant stability, various commonly used indicators can be employed, including peak torque values (Cp) and primary implant stability values (ISQ). The insertion torque of the implant can be measured by equipping the insertion micromotor with a torque gauge, which indicates the resistance encountered during the implant's insertion into the bone tissue. Values approaching 35 Ncm are considered functional and promote predictable osseointegration [9]. Another method for assessing implant stability is the use of resonance frequency analysis (RFA), which provides the implant stability quotient (ISQ). The ISQ is obtained by analyzing the resonance frequency response of the implant, offering valuable information about its stability. RFA is a method that measures the amplitude of lateral oscillation of an implant within bone when stimulated electromagnetically. The resulting resonance frequency, measured in kHz, has been clinically validated, and values between 55 and 85 are considered acceptable within a reliable stability range [10]. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) obtained from RFA is closely linked to the level of bonding between the implant surface and the surrounding bone, which is directly influenced by bone-implant contact (BIC). Therefore, the ISQ is highly dependent on BIC. Resonance frequency analysis is a valuable tool for assessing implant stability not only at the time of insertion (time zero), but also during subsequent follow-up periods [11]. By monitoring the resonance frequency over time, clinicians can evaluate the stability of the implant and track its progress. [PERSON] et al. used an OssetllTM device (Ab Integration Diagnostics, Gothenburg, Sweden) to evaluate the initial stability of a dental implant.