## 3 Results  
Records concerned 13 patients, nine (69.2%) women and four (30.8%) men; their average age was 54.1 \(\pm\) 9.5 years and they were followed for 5.4 [4.2-13.9] (mean, 8.4 \(\pm\) 5.8) months. The median healing time was 3.1 [2.6-6.1] (mean, 4.5 \(\pm\) 2.6) months. Overall, 13 sockets were grafted, and the same amount of implants were placed. Data concerning patient demographics, site of extraction, healing time, newly formed bone (NFB), residual bone (RB), type of implant placed, follow-up time and MBL are reported in Table 1.  
A case is shown in Figure 2 for illustrative purposes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Patient** & **Age** (Yrs)** & **Gender** & **Teoth** & **Healing Time (Mo. )** & **NFBc(s)** & **RBc(s)** & **Implant** & **Implant** & **Follow-Up** & **MBL at Final** \\ \hline
1 & 55 & M & 26 & 3.1 & 69.33 & 18.63 & 1 & 4.5 & 8.0 & 21.6 & 0.3 \\
2 & 48 & M & 25 & 2.3 & 32.61 & 2.53 & 2 & 3.3 & 12.0 & 14.3 &  
A representative image of a histologic slide is shown in Figure 3.  
Figure 3: Image of a representative histologic sample taken from a socket grafted with EDEBEX and stained with hematoxylin-eosin. The biopsy was collected from the patient whose surgery is shown in Figure 2. Panel A shows the sample at 2.5\(\times\) magnification, and the green line highlights how the total area of the sample was calculated for the histomorphometric analysis. Scale bar, 200 \(\upmu\)m. Panel B shows the area bounded by the dashed line in panel A at higher magnification (12\(\times\)). Arrow 1 indicates an area of newly formed bone (NBA), arrow 2 indicates residual biomaterial (RB), and arrow 3 indicates marrow space. Scale bar, 100 \(\upmu\)m.  
Figure 2: An illustrative case of a patient (patient #1) treated with enzyme-deantigenic equine bone particulate combined with a hydrogel carrier (EDEBEX). (**a**) Intra-oral X-ray at presentation; (**b**) clinical appearance at presentation; (**c**) the tooth after been cut to be extractedraumatically; (**d**) the post-extractive socket; (**e**) the socket grafted with EDEBEX; (**f**) the gingival rims are stabilized with a cross stitch; (**g**) soft tissue healing at implant insertion; (**h**) and (**i**) a bone biopsy is collected and (**j**,**k**) an implant placed. (**l**) intra-oral X-ray following implant placement; (**m**), (**n**), (**o**) the final prosthesis delivery; (**p**) intra-oral X-ray recorded at the last control visit (21.6 months after implant placement). The qualitative histological analysis of the samples revealed no signs of inflammatory reactions. Considering the socket as the statistical unit of analysis, NFB was \(43.2\pm 22.1\%\), and RB was \(8.8\pm 5.9\%\) (Figure 4). At the final follow-up, the implant success rate was 92.3% (one implant showed a MBL \(>1.5\) mm on the first year, Table 2). At the implant level, median MBL was 0.20 [0.00-0.45] mm, with four implants showing MBL = 0 (30.8%), eight implants showing an MBL \(<1\) mm (61.5%), and one implant with MBL \(>1.5\) mm (7.7%) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \# Implant & A\&Z criterium 1 & A\&Z criterium 2 & A\&Z criterium 3 & A\&Z criterium 4 & Outcome at Final Follow-Up \\ \hline
1 & & & & & Success \\
2 & & & & & Success \\
3 & & & & & Success \\
4 & & & & & Success \\
5 & & & & & Failure \\
6 & & & & Success \\
7 & & & & Success \\
8 & & & & Success \\
9 & & & & Success \\
10 & & & & Success \\
11 & & & & Success \\
12 & & & & Success \\
13 & & & & Success \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Outcome at final follow-up according to the [PERSON] and Zarb [25] criteria. In particular, these criteria were: (1) absence of persistent pain, dysesthesia, or paresthesia in the implant area; (2) absence of peri-implant infection with or without suppuration; (3) absence of perceptible mobility of the implant; (4) absence of peri-implant bone resorption greater than 1.5 mm during the first year of loading and 0.2 mm/year in the following years.