## 3 Results
faecalis_ (**a**), _Candida_ spp. (**b**) and _P. aeruginosa_ (**c**) for the implant and adjacent tooth. the periodontal subgingival plaque of the adjacent tooth, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. When comparing the values of _E. faecalis_ in individuals who underwent endodontic treatment with those who did not undergo endodontic treatment, it was found that those who underwent treatment had higher median values of _E. faecalis_ CFU/mL (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\)]) compared to those who did not undergo treatment (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)]). However, these differences are not statistically significant (Table 2). Through Table 3, we can observe that _E. faecalis_ had higher median values of CFU/mL in individuals with mucositis (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\)]), compared to individuals with peri-implant health (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) [750,003.75; 32,500,000.0]) and peri-implantitis (5,500,000.0 [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\); 32,500,000.0]); however, these differences are not statistically significant. When analysing the presence or absence of differences in the number of CFU/mL of _Candida_ spp. between individuals who use or do not use an irrigator, it was found that out of the six individuals who were positive for _Candida_ spp., the five individuals who did not use an irrigator had higher median values (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)]) compared to the individual who used an irrigator (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\)])and these differences were statistically significant (\(p\) = 0.025) (Table 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **Diagnostic** & \(n\) & **Median (IQR)** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{_E. faecalis_} & Mucositis & 8 & 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\)] & \\  & Peri-implantitis & 6 & 5,500,000.0 [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\); 32,500,000.0] & 0.148 \\  & Peri-implant health & 6 & 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) [750,003.75; 32,500,000.0] & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{_Candida_ spp.} & Mucositis & 3 & 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\)] & \\  & Peri-implantitis & 2 & 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)] & 0.607 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Peri-implant health & 1 & 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)] & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Summary data as median and interquartile range (IQR); \(p\)-value derived from the Kruskal-Wallis test.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of CFU/mL of _E. faecalis_ and _Candida_ spp. in individuals with mucositis, peri-implantitis and peri-implant health. Figure 2: Percentage distribution of microorganisms for peri-implant disease/health (**a**) and peri-odental health/disease (**b**) in positive individuals. The comparison of the number of CFU/mL of the microorganisms among the different types of implant connection was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (Table 5), which revealed that individuals with Cone morse implants had significantly higher CFU/mL values of _E. faecalis_ (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\)]) compared to individuals with external hexagon (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)]) and internal hexagon (1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) [1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)]) implants (_H_ = 10.3; \(p\) = 0.007). These differences were observed specifically between Cone morse and internal hexagon implants (_p_ = 0.005). Regarding the number of CFU/mL of _Candida_ spp., all three types of implants showed equal median values. As for _P.