*3.2. Histomorphometric Parameters*

Representation of the histologic sections are displayed in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** Histologic sections of the implant and peri-implant bone (original magnification 20×). Representations of group A, B, C, and D are depicted in (**a**), (**b**), (**c**), and (**d**), respectively.

Mean values and standard deviation for BIC, BAFO, and BA1.5 are presented in Figure 4.

**Figure 4.** Bone to Implant Contact (**BIC**), Bone Area Fraction Occupancy (**BAFO**), and Bone Area Fraction Occupancy up to 1.5 mm (**BA1.5**) results represented as mean values. Error bars represent the standard deviation.

According to robust multiple regression analysis (Adjusted *R2*: 0.37, *p* = 0.0001), BIC was statistically significantly influenced by the implant surface (*p* = 0.01) and the drilling protocol (*p* = 0.0001). More specifically, BIC was increased with a moderately rough surface and undersized drilling protocol. BAFO was negatively affected by temperature increase (*p* = 0.01). Moreover BAFO was positively affected by the undersized drilling protocol (*p* = 0.0006) (Adjusted *R2*: 0.24, *p* = 0.005). BA1.5 was moderately affected by the undersized drilling protocol (*p* < 0.001) (Adjusted *R2*: 0.11, *p* = 0.06 for the model). No significant influence on BA1.5 was noted for the temperature change.
