## 3 Results  
A total of 21 patients with mucositis were included in this randomized trial. All patients (12 women and 9 men with an average age of 64 years) agreed to participate in the study and were recruited, resulting in a total number of 94 implants. After randomization, 11 patients were assigned to the test group and 10 patients to the control group. Three patients (one in the test group and two in the control group) left the study after the third visit (after 1 month) due to personal problems that did not allow them to continue therapy and did not show adverse events. For this reason, they were excluded from the study and the results, due to the inconstancy to follow-up program. The final number of patients analyzed was eighteen--ten in the test group and eight in the control group. Figure 1 presents the CONSORT flow chart of the clinical trial detailing the study process. In the test group, five patient were smokers; thus, 50% of them presented an adjunctive risk factor. From a prosthetic point of view, five patients had single crowns, three patients had single crowns in one arch and fixed total prostheses on implants in the other arch, and two patients only had a fixed total prosthesis on implants, resulting in a total of 53 implants. The control group presented two smoking patients; regarding prosthetic rehabilitation type, the distribution was as follows: three patients had a total removable implant-retainer prosthesis and a total fixed prosthesis on implants, one patient had only one total removable implant prosthesis, another patient had only one fixed total prosthesis on implants, two patients had single crowns, and one patient had both a total removable implant-holding prosthesis and single crowns, resulting in a total of 43 implants. Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the results of the study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline _Scores_ & _Plaque Index (PI)_ & _Modified Bleeding Index (mBI)_ \\ \hline
0 & Absence of plaque & No bleeding \\
1 & Plaques with the probing & Isolated point bleeding \\
2 & Visible plaque & Linear bleeding \\
3 & Abundant plaque & Profuse bleeding \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Peri-implant indices considered in the study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Test Group** & **Control Group** \\ \hline Male & 4 & 5 \\ Female & 6 & 3 \\ Total & 10 & 8 \\ Smoker & 5 & 2 \\ _Prosthetic rehabilitation_ & 5 & 2 \\ Crowns & 5 & 2 \\ Overdenture/Toronto Bridges & 2 & 3 \\ Overdenture & 0 & 1 \\ Overdentures/Crowns & 0 & 1 \\ Toronto & 2 & 1 \\ Crowns/Toronto Bridges & 1 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of prosthesis data. Figure 1: CONSORT flow chart of the clinical trial. Both groups show an improvement in the two analyzed periodontal indices. Regarding the bleeding index (mBI), in the test group, there was an improvement ranging from a minimum of 42% in a patient to a maximum of 100% in three patients with single crowns. The control group had a minimum percentage of 36% and a maximum of 88%. The plaque index improved in both groups, with a minimum reduction of 0% to a maximum of 100% in a patient for the test group. The control group demonstrated a minimum percentage of 43% and a maximum of 100% in a patient. The average rate of improvement for the values of mBI and PI of the two groups at the end of experimental treatment was also calculated. Higher values of mBI were found in the test group with a reduction of 71% compared to 68% in the control group (\(p\) = 0.56) (Table 3). A similar reduction in PI values of 64% was  
Figure 3: Clinical appearance after 3 months. The onset of chlorhexidine-related stains is evident. (**a**) Experimental group; (**b**) control group. Figure 2: Graphs of the results. No significant difference was found in the two groups. found in the control group compared to 58% in the test group (\(p\) = 0.60). However, there are no statistically significant differences between both indices.