## 3 Results  
Thirty-eight patients (15 males and 23 females, respectively) aged from 23 to 72 years (mean age 49.4 \(\pm\) 32.4 years) were recruited in the present study, and 36 completed the study: two implants were considered as drop-outs due to insufficient implant primary stability (<35 Ncm) during the implant placement. Patients' demographic characteristics are reported in Table 2.  
The implant and surgical site characteristics are reported in Table 3: 12 (33.3%) implants were positioned in the upper jaw; 21 implants (58.3%) were in molar region; 23 implants (63.9%) were 3.6 \(\times\) 9 mm and 13 (36.1%) 4.3 \(\times\) 7.5 mm. Observed STH was 3 mm in 21 patients (58.4%) and 2 mm in 12 (33.3%). No patient had an STH equal to 1 mm, and only 3 patients (8.3%) had 4 mm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Demographic** & **Total** & **Control Group BLG** & **Test Group SCG** \\
**Characteristics** & **N (\%)** & **N (\%)** & **N (\%)** \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Subjects enrolled & 38 (100\%) & 19 (50\%) & 19 (50\%) \\ \hline Drop Out & 2 (5.3\%) & 1 (50\%) & 1 (50\%) \\ \hline Age (mean) & 49.4 (23–72) & 47.3 (23–69) & 51.5 (33–72) \\ \hline Sex & F: 22 (62\%) & F: 13 (72.2\%) & F: 9 (50\%) \\  & M: 14 (38.9\%) & M: 5 (27.8\%) & M: 9 (50\%) \\ \hline Smokers & 6 (16.7\%) & 4 (22.2\%) & 2 (11.1\%) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)Subcestal implant. \({}^{\star\star}\) Bone-level implant.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Patient demographic characteristics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Sites** & **Total** & **Control Group BLG** & **Test Group SCG** \\
**N (\%)** & **N (\%)** & **N (\%)** \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Dental arch} & Upper: 12 (33.3\%) & Upper: 7 (38.9\%) & Upper: 5 (33.3\%) \\  & Lower: 24 (66.7\%) & Lower: 11 (61\%) & Lower: 13 (66.7\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Site} & Premalor: 15 (41.7\%) & Premalor: 9 (50\%) & Premalor: 15 (41.7\%) \\  & Molar: 21 (53.8\%) & Molar: 9 (50\%) & Molar: 21 (53.8\%) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{STH \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\)(mm)} & 1: 0 (0\%) & 1: 0 (0\%) & 1: 0 (0\%) \\  & 2: 12 (33.3\%) & 2: 4 (22.2\%) & 2: 8 (44.4\%) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3: 21 (58.4\%) & 3: 13 (72.2\%) & 3: 8 (44.4\%) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4: 3 (8.3\%) & 4: 1 (5.6\%)) & 4: 2 (11.2\%) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Implant-site clinical features. MBM for both groups from the baseline (T0) to the prosthetic loading (T1), six-month follow-up visit (T2) and 1-year follow-up visit (T3) were statically significant (\(p<0.01\)), as shown in Table 4. Particularly, after 1 year of loading, the mean MBM in the control group was \(-0.52\) mm compared to the baseline (T0) and \(-0.60\) mm in the test group. However, no significant difference was observed when the MBM values in the two study groups were compared (\(p>0.05\)) (Table 4). The control group showed a mean bone loss (BL) equivalent to the MBM values, whilst no MBM below the implant neck was noted for the test group. Therefore, the bone loss for this group equals to zero at all time points. Clinical peri-implant parameters modification over time are reported in Table 5. In the control group, a mean PD of 3.04 mm was observed after 1 year (T3), while the mean PD was 2.38 mm in the test group, with a statistically significant difference (\(p<0.05\)). The mean BoP at 1 year (T3), was 43.06% in the control group and 50% in the test group, with no statistically significant intergroup difference (\(p>0.05\)). Comparably, the control and test group PI indexes after 1 year were 19.44% and 33.33%, respectively (\(p>0.05\)).