Objectives: To evaluate whether placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests confers any clinical benefits. Materials and Methods: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns were enrolled in a split-mouth design across six centres. Each site was randomly assigned to receive an implant placed either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally. Patients were followed up to 10 years post-loading. Outcome measures included crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference. Results: Eight patients were lost to follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding implant failures (7 vs. 3; p = 0.125), patients experiencing complications (10 [18.5%] vs. 7 [13%]; p = 0.508), PES (7.66 ± 3.14 vs. 7.46 ± 2.97, p = 0.510). Ten years post-loading, patients in the 0.5 mm group exhibited an average marginal bone loss of 0.38 ± 0.84 mm, while those in the 1.5 mm group showed 0.17 ± 0.45 mm, a difference that was not statistically significant (difference = −0.21 mm; 95% CI −0.47 to 0.04; p = 0.097). No patient preference for implant placement depth was noted. No significant differences in outcomes were found between centres. Conclusions: Subcrestal implant placement at either 0.5 or 1.5 mm, when at least 1 mm of surrounding bone is present, seems not to affect the long-term outcomes.

Ten-Year Post-Loading Outcomes of Subcrestally Placed Implants With Internal Conical Connections at 0.5 mm Versus 1.5 mm Depth: A Multicentre Within-Person Randomised Controlled Trial / Esposito, M., Visconti, R.F., Gualini, F., Rigotti, F., Mazzarini, C., Longhin, D., Grigoletto, M., Giudice, A., Greco, K., Salina, S.. - In: CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH. - ISSN 1600-0501. - 37:8(2026), pp. 905-921. [10.1111/clr.70135]

Ten-Year Post-Loading Outcomes of Subcrestally Placed Implants With Internal Conical Connections at 0.5 mm Versus 1.5 mm Depth: A Multicentre Within-Person Randomised Controlled Trial

Esposito, Marco
;
Visconti, Riccardo Federico;
2026-01-01

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whether placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests confers any clinical benefits. Materials and Methods: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns were enrolled in a split-mouth design across six centres. Each site was randomly assigned to receive an implant placed either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally. Patients were followed up to 10 years post-loading. Outcome measures included crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference. Results: Eight patients were lost to follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding implant failures (7 vs. 3; p = 0.125), patients experiencing complications (10 [18.5%] vs. 7 [13%]; p = 0.508), PES (7.66 ± 3.14 vs. 7.46 ± 2.97, p = 0.510). Ten years post-loading, patients in the 0.5 mm group exhibited an average marginal bone loss of 0.38 ± 0.84 mm, while those in the 1.5 mm group showed 0.17 ± 0.45 mm, a difference that was not statistically significant (difference = −0.21 mm; 95% CI −0.47 to 0.04; p = 0.097). No patient preference for implant placement depth was noted. No significant differences in outcomes were found between centres. Conclusions: Subcrestal implant placement at either 0.5 or 1.5 mm, when at least 1 mm of surrounding bone is present, seems not to affect the long-term outcomes.
2026
aesthetics
bone levels
dental implant
subcrestal placement
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/208616
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact