## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Clinical Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**6 Months**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Control Group \({}^{**}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test Group \({}^{*}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TEST vs. Control**} \\  & & & & & & & 1 Year vs. \\  & & & & & & 6 Months \\ \hline BOP (\%) & 55.56 & 43.06 & 0.78 & 36.11 & 50.00 & 1.38 & 0.65 & 1.16 \\ (CI 95\%) & (43.90; 70.31) & (33.54; 55.27) & (0.56; 1.08) & (24.51; 53.21) & (36.40; 68.68) & (0.86; 2.23) & (0.41; 1.02) & (0.78; 1.74) \\  & & & & & & [\(p=0.180\)] & [\(p=0.0627\)] & [\(p=0.4681\)] \\ \hline PI (\%) & 12.50 & 19.44 & 1.56 & 11.11 & 33.33 & 3.00 & 0.89 & 1.71 \\ (CI 95\%) & (4.90; 31.89) & (10.54; 35.86) & (0.49; 4.89) & (5.03; 24.53) & (21.00; 52.91) & (1.33; 6.79) & (0.26; 3.03) & (0.80; 3.69) \\  & & & & & [\(p=0.00837\)] & [\(p=0.851\)] & [\(p=0.168\)] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Subcrestal Implant. \({}^{**}\) Bone Level Implant. \(p=p\) value.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._When assessing the soft tissues, the mean PD value in the test group was 2.38 mm at 12 months after loading and 3.04 mm in the control group, respectively. That difference was both statistically and clinically significant, considering the confidence interval of 2.13-2.62 for the test group and 2.64-3.45 in the control group. This means that in the test group, more than 2.62 mm of PD could not be found, while in the control group, values of up to 3.45 mm could be observed. The recent literature highlighted that the depth of the mucosal tunnel can be a crucial factor in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, should it occur [25]. [PERSON] et al. [25] showed that deeper mucosal tunnel depth (\(\geq\)3 mm) is associated with chronic inflammation. Crown removal and professional hygiene were needed to revert such mucositis. Differently, in the shallow tunnel depth \(\leq\)1 mm, just the oral hygiene practice was sufficient to revert the mucositis. Accessibility for biofilm removal around implant prosthesis is crucial for preventing and managing peri-implant diseases [47]. PI was slightly but not significantly higher in the test group (33.33% vs. 19.44% \(p\) = 0.168) because of the profiles of the restorations, but the plaque was just lying on the gum surface and not in the sulcus. The slightly but not significantly higher BoP (50% vs. 43.06% \(p\) = 0.4681) was due to the irritation of the mucosa and not to an inflammation of the mucosal tunnel, and this is an important factor. An additional observation was made in the test group: one year after loading, in 18% of cases, BoP was observed without the presence of plaque. The authors' assumption is that the bleeding was due to compression of the soft tissues by the crown contour. In those cases, the crowns were unscrewed from the GFA, without interfering with the integrity of the mucosal barrier, remodeled, and polished to reduce the soft tissues compression. It was also possible to check the health of the free gingival sulcus around the GFA. The mean PD was 1.22 mm (IC 1.07-1.37 mm), and the juxtagingival position of the restoration margin was confirmed. This aspect may be important in patients with a history of periodontitis and high risk of implant diseases [48] in the posterior sectors where home hygiene procedures are difficult and esthetics is less important. [PERSON] and colleagues, in a recent randomized controlled clinical trial [36] on the management of peri-implant mucositis, showed that implants with supra-mucosal restoration margins yielded significantly greater reductions in probing depth following treatment compared to those with submucosal margins. A limitation of the current study is that the BLG control group was restored with crowns directly screwed to the implant with Ti-base abutment, while in the test group, a definitive GFA was used, following a one-time abutment (OTA) prosthetic workflow.