Correction: Antonelli, A., et al. Can Bone Compaction Improve Primary Implant Stability? An In Vitro Comparative Study with Osseodensiﬁcation Technique. Applied Sciences 2020, 10 , 8623

The author wishes to make the following corrections to this paper [...]


Change in Figure
In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. During the check of the manuscript the authors observed that an incorrect picture was uploaded during the submission phases. The corrected Figure 1 appears below. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.

Text Correction
The authors provide some additional necessary information about the limitations of the study and the conclusion section.
"Moreover, the use of manual bone spreaders preserves a significant amount of bone, exploiting the elastic feature of the soft bone, positively improving the implant primary stability. Nevertheless, several in vivo studies are required to analyze any possible difference between the surgical techniques (BC and OD) performed in this study, in terms of histological healing and long-term clinical data with success rates".
Many sentences in the Discussion section have been modified in part to making sure that the readers could better understand the manuscript's aim: "According to the literature, there is no clear correlation between PIT and ISQ. Furhermore, ISQ is not an effective one-time measurement parameter, however it is designed to be a time-related parameter [31]".
"Clinical data and reviews have shown the effectiveness of the osseodensification procedure in improving primary and secondary stability in medullary bone [32,33]; as evidenced in several experimental in vivo and clinical studies, the osseodensification procedure have been proved to obtain the implant osseointegration from a biomechanical and histological point of view, using many implant microgeometry [34-36].
This concept, supported by histomorphometric and clinical analysis, showed how performing this surgical technique in soft bone can increase the primary implant stability values promoting new bone formation around the fixture, providing greater stability [36-41]".

Text Correction
The authors provide some additional necessary information about the limitations of the study and the conclusion section.
"Moreover, the use of manual bone spreaders preserves a significant amount of bone, exploiting the elastic feature of the soft bone, positively improving the implant primary stability. Nevertheless, several in vivo studies are required to analyze any possible difference between the surgical techniques (BC and OD) performed in this study, in terms of histological healing and long-term clinical data with success rates".
Many sentences in the Discussion section have been modified in part to making sure that the readers could better understand the manuscript's aim: "According to the literature, there is no clear correlation between PIT and ISQ. Furhermore, ISQ is not an effective one-time measurement parameter, however it is designed to be a time-related parameter [31]".
"Clinical data and reviews have shown the effectiveness of the osseodensification procedure in improving primary and secondary stability in medullary bone [32,33]; as evidenced in several experimental in vivo and clinical studies, the osseodensification procedure have been proved to obtain the implant osseointegration from a biomechanical and histological point of view, using many implant microgeometry [34][35][36].
This concept, supported by histomorphometric and clinical analysis, showed how performing this surgical technique in soft bone can increase the primary implant stability values promoting new bone formation around the fixture, providing greater stability [36-41]".
"Removal torque does not provide data on implant stability directly, but rather represents a parameter indicating the relationship between bone and implant surface, especially for in vitro and ex vivo studies [44]. In fact, the removal torque testing is not a welldocumented clinical stability parameter in the literature." "Both BC and OD are bone preservation methods. They are vastly different than under preparation standard drilling to create a misfit method. In our study, both groups osteotomies were not undersized and were within 0.2 to 0.3 mm smaller than the implant major diameter.
As recently assessed in a preclinical study implant site under-preparation with standard extraction drilling to create a misfit would lead to osteodestruction and the stress/strain linked to the severe downsized osteotomy could affect BIC and implant stability [29]. In fact, the micro-fractures performed in the peri-implant bone can cause a huge zone of dying osteocytes [48]. High interfacial pressures and mechanical underpreparation seem to produce a pro-resorptive environment as indicated by the lack of alkaline phosphatase activity and collagen I. Several authors assessed as the osseodensification technique produces bone chips usable as autografts during implant site preparation  The authors are sorry for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.