Table 4.

Evaluation of tissues.

Studies, Year	Soft Tissue	Bone Formation
Wang et al. 2019 [23]	Inform through images	Inform through images
Song et al. 2018 [24]	NR	-Fluorescence images of the rat femora after 2 weeks of implant placement. -Bone histology at 2 weeks after implant placement. -Histological analysis of the decalcification samples around Ti.
Chen et al. 2017 [25]	NR	-Bone volume 2 and 4 weeks -Bone-to-implant binding 12 weeks. -New bone formation (area percentage) 2 and 4 weeks. -%BIC2 and 4 weeks.
Bhattarai et al. 2015 (a) [26]	NR	-Bone volume 4 weeks. -Supporting bone around implants.
Bhattarai et al. 2015 (b) [27]	NR	Bone formation around the implant body (inform through images).
Marsich et al. 2013 [28]	NR	BIC for Chitlac–nAg 26% (minimum 22%, maximum 27%)
Travan et al. 2012 [29]	NR	Chitlac-TS implants showed direct bone–implant contact with a minimal soft tissue interlayer, indicating good biological compatibility of the material. For the Chitlac-TS implants, the total BIC was 72% (minimum 59%, maximum 80%)

BIC, Bone-to-Implant Contact; Chitlac-TS, lactose derivative of a highly deacetylated chitosan with unmodified thermoset; Chitlac–nAg, Chitlac–lactose–silver nanoparticles; TS, Thermoset; NR, Not Reported.