## 1 Introduction  
Oral implantology is recognized as a safe and effective clinical methodology capable of ensuring long-term success in oral rehabilitation [1]. The origins of this medical field trace back to the early 1950s when Dr. [PERSON], a Swedish orthopedic surgeon, made groundbreaking discoveries while conducting orthopedic experiments on rabbit legs [2]. Since then, the field has rapidly evolved, driven by advances in biomaterials and surgical techniques, leading to improved outcomes and increased patient satisfaction. Currently, an implant is considered osseointegrated when there is no progressive relative movement between the implant and the surrounding bone, indicating direct contact and stability [3]. Primary stability is largely influenced by mechanical interlocking between the implant surface and the host bone, which is dependent on factors such as bone density, implant design, and surgical technique [4]. Achieving and maintaining long-term osseointegration is complex and can be affected by various biological and mechanical factors. These include the patient's systemic health, local bone quality, implant loading conditions, and surface characteristics of the implant. Recent studies suggest that modifying implant surfaces to enhance their biological compatibility can significantly improve osseointegration outcomes [5; 6]. Numerous surface treatment methods have been investigated and implemented to enhance the biological surface characteristics of implants, supporting the osseointegration process for both short-term and long-term success [5; 6]. Among these, surface roughness and hydrophilicity are particularly significant in achieving high bone-to-implant contact (BIC). These surface characteristics are designed to provide better stability during the healing process and enable faster implant loading by accelerating the osseointegration mechanism and promoting stronger, faster bone formation [7; 8]. To enhance the osteoconductivity and osteoinductivity of biomaterials for bone regeneration, modification of their surface has been demonstrated to promote cell adhesion, proliferation, and new bone formation [8]. These treatments include additive modifications such as coatings or subtractive modifications including etching, sand blasting, and others [8]. Among the various biomaterial treatments aimed at enhancing osseointegration, plasma treatment has demonstrated significant improvements in cell adhesion by modifying surface roughness and wettability [9; 10]. Plasma activation modifies the surface by incorporating functional groups, increasing surface energy, and enhancing hydrophilicity. This leads to a reduction in the contact angle between biological fluids and the implant surface, facilitating osteoblastic cell diffusion without leaving any residues after treatment. Additionally, plasma treatment induces changes in physicochemical properties, including the surface free energy, hydrocarbon content, and the presence of functional hydroxyl groups [11]. Recent advances in plasma technology have enabled the development of low-pressure plasma systems capable of uniformly treating complex implant geometries. These systems offer precise control over treatment parameters such as power, gas composition, and exposure time, enabling tailored surface modifications to enhance biocompatibility. However, despite promising in vitro results [12], clinical evidence on plasma-treated biomaterials remains limited, needing further investigation. Despite the promising results from in vitro studies, clinical evidence on the effectiveness of plasma-treated biomaterials remains limited, necessitating further investigation. The aim of this clinical audit is to evaluate the clinical and histological outcomes of patients that receive implant-supported crowns after VPST of biomaterials used in socket preservation (SP) and guided bone regeneration (GBR).