## 3 Results
### Clinical Outcomes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Baseline** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**6-Month Follow Up**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**12-Month Follow Up**} \\ \hline  & & **Control** & **Test** & **Control** & **Test** & **Control** & **Test** \\ \hline MBL & (mean \(\pm\) sd) & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.41 & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.56 \\ MBL & median & 0.17 & 0.16 & 0.62 & 0.32 & 0.41 & 0.23 \\ \(\Delta\)MBL & (mean \(\pm\) sd) & // & // & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.39 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.38 \\ MTH & (mean \(\pm\) sd) & 7.53 \(\pm\) 1.67 & 7.79 \(\pm\) 1.40 & // & // & 7.29 \(\pm\) 1.62 & 7.83 \(\pm\) 1.02 \\ MTH & median & 7.00 & 7.33 & // & // & 7.17 & 7.83 \\ \(\Delta\)MTH & (mean \(\pm\) sd) & // & // & // & // & \(-\)0.24 \(\pm\) 0.59 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.72 \\ PPD & (mean \(\pm\) sd) & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.41 & 2.21 \(\pm\) 0.31 & // & // & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 2.68 \(\pm\) 0.73 \\ PPD & median & 2.10 & 2.25 & // & // & 2.30 & 2.50 \\ BOP & (mean \(\pm\) sd) & // & // & // & // & 1.18 \(\pm\) 1.25 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 \\ BOP & median & // & // & // & // & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean \(\pm\) sd and median for the temporal evolution of all clinical outcomes. Figure 3: Marginal bone level (MBL) results for test and control implants. 12-month follow-up in test (\(p\) = 0.12) and in control implants (\(p\) = 0.35) when test and control implants were analysed separately. Bleeding on Probing. At 12-month follow-up no significant difference was found between test and control implants (\(p\) = 0.81). It is worth nothing that only two implants in a single patient had \"visible\" inflammation and \"line or droplet\" BOP, which is not reflected in the dichotomous recordings of BOP. This was diagnosed as peri-implant mucositis according to the newest classifications [50]. On further investigation this was diagnosed as caused by \"incorrect flossing technique\" and it was resolved in themonths following oral hygiene technique instructions and revision. Failures. All implants were placed with no detectable surgical complications. After transmucosal healing, all 13 pairs of implants were successfully integrated. One patient dropped out before restoration. Through the study only one failure was noted. This was a \"late failure\" [51] detected at the 12-month review. Hence, the overall implant survival rate was 95.8%. The failed implant was a 4.6 \(\times\) 7.5 mm control implant placed in a maxillary molar site, with a \(>\)1 crown to implant ratio in a male patient. The implant experienced 1.5 mm of marginal bone loss from placement to integration; however, no further bone loss or obvious radiopacity was noted at the 12-month follow up. PPD was found to be less than 5 mm circumferentially on the failed implant with no \"abnormal\" BOP, recession or visible inflammation. The failure was only detected when mobility was noted via tapping the implant. The patient retrospectively reported mild discomfort on biting in the region a few months prior to the failure being detected. The cause of failure was diagnosed as a \"mechanical overload\". The implant was removed uneventfully. The patient subsequently exited from the study and the implant was later replaced after adequate healing time was allowed.