Developing New Implant System: Ideal Diameter of Drills?

it should take into consideration, at least, the following aspects: the shape and dimensions of the implant's body (without the helix), the depth of the helix (I see it's 0,24) and last nut not least the type of bone.

it should be as close as possible so as to have greater primary stability specialy for emmediat loading cases

Cylindrical implants are history. If you don’t use tests (in wood, etc), to find answer for questions like this, it is a problem.The question is also wrong. The ideal drill diameter is different like the variety of bone density, and in different implant diameters. Do you want to give one drill for different bone types? I can not believe, that someone tries to create an implant for medical use, by ask this here... I think, you should find someone, who knows, how an implant system has to be developed. This has to be the first to do, before you waste more time and money (for CAD programs...)

Will I get a cut for the royalties if I tell you what would work?

I can help if you provide contact info. There are a lot of considerations that need to be addressed before you invest time and money on such a venture. There are also many implants on the market so there has to be a deficiency that your design addresses, otherwise don't waste your time.

why another implant? what is so special and different that anyone would choose your unproven implant over those on the market now? be sure that you have a good answer to these questions before spending much time and money.

I would reinvent a good two and single stage blade implant system!

And a subperiostial or transmandibular fixture. With 99% success rates in most areas, I would focus on something else. Regenerative materials or volume maintaing biocompatible cribs. Who edited these questions? Bv

at this point you're essentially re-inventing the wheel. this has all been bench tested for years now: thread pitch,thread thickness, number of threads/unit length,surface coatings,drill vs. osteotome,bone quality,etc.the last comment, about blades....thats interesting...this guy is an old-timer who has seen alot of design variation i'm sure.i've seen some of these blades stand the test of time and i think they fell out of fashion because you really needed to know what you were doing...let's face it,the implants today are kinda' cookbook...and thats a good thing.what about the supra-periosteal "cage implants" they can't be mass produced but i've seen some in f(x) for years on fully resorbed ridges.if you could develop a surface coat that was taken up by the periosteum this would open doors on some severely atrophied mand/max cases w/out rquiring sinus/ridge augmentation.

that depends on many things,like your thread design and shape,number of threads,thread depth,cutting or non cutting one,your tapping drills and so on. I wonder if this is so important issue comparing to surface texture, implant-abutment connection, well designed prosthetic solutions for difficult situations,well designed surgical tray and well documentation.So by asking such a question i believe you have been lost so far.