Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded: In dense bone blocks, the wider diameter implants are more stable than narrow implants. In soft bone blocks, the tapered TSV implants are more stable than TM implants.

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it may be concluded that the temperature increases more in piezosurgery osteotomies in dense bone without irrigation; the time to perform the osteotomy with piezosurgery is shorter in soft bone compared to hard bone; and the piezosurgical device have a minimal influence in the temperature and time variations when a similar tip design is used during piezosurgery osteotomies.

Background The implant design and the surgical technique are important parameters that can be modified to improve the implant primary stability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of the apical part of an implant on the implant stability of implants placed in Type II dense bone by novice and experienced clinicians. Methods Implants with a progressive thread design (3.5 mm diameter, 11 mm length) were used. A total of 80 osteotomies were prepared in dense bone samples (quality Type II) by two clinicians with different levels of experience (novice and experienced) under the same surgical protocol. Two experimental groups were prepared. In the test group (apical stability), 40 implants were inserted with only 3 mm of the apical portion of the implant within the bone and without lateral contact between the residual implant length and the osteotomy walls. In the control group (full implant stability), 40 implants were inserted with full contact between the osteotomy walls and the implant surface. The stability of both groups (test and control) was evaluated using a resonance frequency analysis (RFA) (implant stability quotient [ISQ] values). Statistical comparisons between the groups were performed using the Kruskal‐Wallis test with Dunn post‐test for multiple comparisons. Results The results did not show statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in terms of primary stability between implants placed by novice or experienced clinicians in dense bone. The control group showed significantly higher ISQ values compared with the test group (P < 0.001). The apical implant stability contributed to ≈ 30% and 43% of the entire implant stability for novice and experienced clinicians, respectively. Conclusions The apical portion of an implant plays a fundamental role in the entire implant stability and is independent on the clinician's experience. However, precise implant site preparation to guarantee apical implant anchorage is recommended.