## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Temporal Changes**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Differences between Groups**} \\  & **2 Weeks** & **1 Year** & **2 Weeks** & **1 Year** \\ \hline Group A & 1.54 (0.31) & 2.41 (0.53) & & \\ Group B & 0.93 (0.20) & 1.12 (0.30) & _0.00_ & _0.00_ \\ Group C & 1.42 (0.25) & 1.39 (0.75) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} in brackets—standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Pocket depth analysis while probing: temporal changes and differences between groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Temporal Changes**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Differences between Groups**} \\  & **2 Weeks** & **1 Year** & **2 Weeks** & **1 Year** \\ \hline Group A & 0.17 (0.28) & 0.22 (0.32) & & \\ Group B & 0.00 (0.00) & 0.00 (0.00) & _0.13_ & _0.00_ \\ Group C & 0.22 (0.29) & 0.56 (0.44) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} in brackets—standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Analysis of the plaque retention index: temporal changes and differences between the groups. (_p = 0.00_). In both measurements, the indicator remained statistically significantly lower in Group B compared to the other two groups. The radiography results showed no bone loss in any of the study groups. A series of _T_-tests were performed in order to assess the significance of the variations in the mean values of bone loss for each group on the basis of the two time periods (Table 8). [PERSON]'s papillae height index had the highest values in Group B, increasing by two times over the course of the study period. The results showed an increase in this index in all three patient groups, as measured by the means. The increase was statistically significant in Groups B and C, while the growth in Group A remained statistically insignificant (_p = 0.10_). In the distal papillae, Group B once again showed the highest mean for [PERSON]'s papillary height index compared to the other two groups, reaching an average of 2.56. However, the observed increases were only statistically significant only Group C, where the largest increase in the indicator was observed. In Group B, the increase was statistically insignificant over the study period (_p = 0.17_). Similarly, Group A also recorded a statistically insignificant increase (_p = 0.30_) (Table 9). With regard to the medial papilla, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the two measurements at both two weeks and one year. The aesthetic indicator \"Gingiva color around the restoration\" showed a mild marggingivalis graying of the otherwise clinically healthy PIM in Groups B and C, with index scores of 1-2 (pale pink to pink) compared to Group A (Figure 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Medial**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Distal**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **T** & **T-1** & **T** & **T-1** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Group B} & Mean (std. div.) & 2.422 & 2.422 & 2.433 & 2.443 \\  & (0.429) & (0.429) & (0.406) & (0.394) \\ \cline{2-6}  & _p-value_ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_No change_} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_0.347_} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Group B} & Mean (std. div.) & 1.8 (0.235) & 1.789 (0.252) & 1.8 (0.292) & 1.8 (0.292) \\ \cline{2-6}  & _p-value_ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.347} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{No change} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Group B} & Mean (std. div.) & 2.344 & 2.344 & 2.322 & 2.333 \\  & (0.288) & (0.288) & (0.379) & (0.361) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & _p-value_ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_No change_} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_0.347_} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Bone loss measurements—statistical findings (mm).