## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups (n)**} & **Cylindrical** & **Conical** & **U** & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **t** & & \\  & & **Median (IR)** & **Median (IR)** & **CH2** & & \\  & & **_n (\%)_ & **_n (\%)_ & **CH2** & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Insertion torque (Ncm)} & Maxilla (\(n\) = 59) & 45 (11.25) & 35 (12.50) & U 215.5 & 0.010 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Mandible \\ (\(n\) = 43) \\ \end{tabular} } & 50 (10) & 42.50 (20) & U 157 & 0.078 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{U (\(p\)-value)} & & 144 (0.401) & 427.5 (0.375) & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ISQ day of surgery (ISQ units)} & Maxilla (\(n\) = 59) & 80.80 (7.28) & 73.30 (11.15) & U 131 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Mandible \\ (\(n\) = 43) \\ \end{tabular} } & 77 (7) & 78.50 (17.40) & U 215 & 0.759 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{U (\(p\)-value)} & & 101.50 (0.34) & 286 (0.005 \({}^{*}\)) & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Maxilla (\(n\) = 59) & 85 (7.78) & 77.60 (5.65) & U 202.50 & 0.006 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} ISQ 3 months \\ (ISQ units) \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} Mandible \\ (\(n\) = 43) \\ \end{tabular} & 83 (6.60) & 79.50 (8.97) & U 153 & 0.066 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} U (\(p\)-value) \\ \end{tabular} } & & 161 (0.760) & 399 (0.206) & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Maxilla (\(n\) = 59) & 18 (17.64\%) & 41 (40.20\%) & CH2 4.450 & 0.349 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Mandible \\ (\(n\) = 43) \\ \end{tabular} } & & 19 (18.63\%) & 24 (23.53\%) & CH2 9.855 & 0.079 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Chi\({}^{2}\) (\(p\)-value) \\ \end{tabular} } & & 2835 (0.586) & 3.057 (0.547) & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Maxilla (\(n\) = 59) & 709.03 \(\pm\) 148.08 & 594.21 \(\pm\) 185.95 & \(t\) 2.314 & 0.024 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Mandible \\ (\(n\) = 43) \\ \end{tabular} } & & 684.87 \(\pm\) 171.82 & 725 \(\pm\) 215.91 & \(t\) 2.869 & 0.512 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} \(t\) (\(p\)-value) \\ \end{tabular} } & & 0.457 (0.651) & \(-\)2.578 (0.012 \({}^{*}\)) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Effects of the arch (maxilla or mandible) 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). Tables 6 and 7 display the descriptive data and the effects of the implant diameter (standard and wide) and the implant width (standard and long) for the various preoperative and intraoperative variables, respectively. Higher insertion torques and denser bones were detected for the standard-width conical implants compared to the wide implants (U = 126; \(p\) = 0.006, and t = 3.454; \(p\) < 0.001, respectively). Lower tactile bone quality indices were assessed for the standard-width conical implants (CHI\({}^{2}\) = 20.93; \(p\) < 0.001). A higher insertion torque and ISQ on the day of the surgery and after three months were assessed for standard-width cylindrical implants in comparison to conical implants (U = 665; \(p\) = 0.008, U = 667; \(p\) = 0.009, and U = 537; \(p\) < 0.001, respectively) (Table 6). When the cylindrical and conical implants were compared according to implant length (standard or long), no significant differences were identified (\(p\) > 0.05) in any of the variables examined. However, significantly higher insertion torques and ISQ values on the day of the surgery and after three months were assessed for the long implants when using the cylindrical implants (U = 218; \(p\) = 0.036, U = 194.50; \(p\) = 0.012, and U = 201.50; \(p\) = 0.018, respectively). The same effect was found for the ISQ after three months for the standard-length implants (U = 151.50; \(p\) = 0.012).