## 4 Discussion
These advantages are observed across different parameters and histomorphometric analyses, with all values in experimental groups utilizing the osteodensification technique showing a significant increase compared with control groups [2,4,22,27,30]. The results from the in vitro comparative analysis further support this notion, indicating that the preparation of implant sites using the osteodensification technique with osteecondensation drills can substantially enhance the indicator values of implant stability, reflecting a measurable increase in peri-implant bone mineral density. This study investigated the use of osteecondensation drills in the preparation of the implant site through an in vitro analysis. The study compared implant stability parameters between two test groups (A and C) and two control groups (B and D). The implants in the test groups were inserted into osteotomic sites using osteecondensation drills, employing an osteocompacting rotation technique. In the control groups (B and D), the osteotomies were prepared using the same drills but with a reverse rotation, employing osteeosubtractive mechanics. The relationship between osteeocondensation drills and increased preparation depth was investigated for the first time. Group A's osteotomies were performed using the same method but with an extended depth of 12 mm, matching the length of the inserted implants. However, the implant stability values in group A were lower than those observed in all other groups in the study. During the realization phase of the osteotomies, it became evident that implant insertion in group A sites prevented them from reaching the intended preparation depth. This incomplete insertion of the implant could be attributed to the presence of trabecular substance around the walls and apex of the preparation site. In group A, the implant failure did not make full contact with the bone along its entire length, resulting in a fraction of the crestal module of the implant emerging from the surface of the sample block (Figure 3b). Consequently, the ISQ values decreased, indicating reduced bone-to-implant contact and stability. In control group B, the osteotomies were prepared to a depth of 12 mm, matching the length of the implant fixture. In contrast, in group D, the osteotomies were extended to 14 mm. The Cp parameter showed an increase in group B compared with group D, but remained lower than in group C. On the other hand, the ISQ value of group B was lower than the same parameter in group D, highlighting the influence of osteotomy depth on the ISQ value. Additional studies have demonstrated that overpreparation of the implant site leads to faster healing and bone formation around the implant surface. This is attributed to reduced bone compression, increased cell viability, enhanced osteogenesis, and an improved implant stability ratio over time [32]. Furthermore, our findings are in line with those of [PERSON] et al., who demonstrated that osseedensification significantly enhances primary stability in low-density bone, as evidenced by higher insertion torque and RFA values. This supports our observations of increased stability with deeper implant placement using osseodesification drills [4]. A significant limitation of this study stems from employing a polyurethane sample block for experimental purposes. This model lacks the cortical bone layer typically present in human anatomy. The absence of this cortical layer omits a critical aspect of bone structure, notably the transition from dense cortical to spongy cancellous bone, which is pivotal in understanding implant dynamics in a natural physiological environment. Consequently, the findings, especially those relating to the performance and impact of osteecondensation drills, should be cautiously interpreted, considering this simplification of bone anatomy. Furthermore, the study did not include the factors influencing implant stability in a clinical setting.