# In vitro evaluation of different implant systems and their influence on primary stability

## TL;DR

This study compared three implant systems in low-density bone and found no significant differences in primary stability or bone quality.

## Contribution

The study empirically evaluates three milling systems for implants in low-density bone and finds no significant differences in performance.

## Key findings

- No statistically significant differences in bone microarchitecture were found among the implant groups.
- Primary stability, measured by insertion torque, was comparable across all three implant systems.
- All systems provided similar conditions for implant insertion in low-density bone.

## Abstract

The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the primary stability and bone quality changes of three milling systems for implants. Osteotomies were performed on fresh, low-density bovine ribs using three different milling techniques for the Strong SW implant system: conventional drilling according to the manufacturer’s protocol (control), osseodensification, and bone expander (n = 5 per group). Prior to implant insertion, bone quality at the cervical, body, and apical regions was assessed using micro-computed tomography. Implants were then placed at the bone level, and primary stability was evaluated by measuring insertion torque with a digital torque meter. Bone quality and insertion torque values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the cervical, body, and apical regions, as well as among the implant groups SIN, VERSAH, and MAXIMUS (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the insertion torque of the SIN group (35 ± 21.5 N/cm), VERSAH group (43.2 ± 27.1 N/cm), and MAXIMUS group (59.6 ± 28.5 N/cm) also showed no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). These findings suggest a similarity in bone microarchitecture and insertion strength among the different implants studied. The three milling techniques demonstrated comparable performance, showing no significant differences in bone microarchitecture or primary stability. These results indicate that all systems provided similar conditions for implant insertion in low-density bone.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-026-35112-5.