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

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2026-08-06 Epub Date: 2026-04-28 DOI:10.1111/clr.70135
Marco Esposito, Riccardo Federico Visconti, Federico Gualini, Fabio Rigotti, Cristian Mazzarini, Diego Longhin, Mauro Grigoletto, Amerigo Giudice, Katia Greco, Sergio Salina
{"title":"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","authors":"Marco Esposito,&nbsp;Riccardo Federico Visconti,&nbsp;Federico Gualini,&nbsp;Fabio Rigotti,&nbsp;Cristian Mazzarini,&nbsp;Diego Longhin,&nbsp;Mauro Grigoletto,&nbsp;Amerigo Giudice,&nbsp;Katia Greco,&nbsp;Sergio Salina","doi":"10.1111/clr.70135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate whether placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests confers any clinical benefits.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eight patients were lost to follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding implant failures (7 vs. 3; <i>p</i> = 0.125), patients experiencing complications (10 [18.5%] vs. 7 [13%]; <i>p</i> = 0.508), PES (7.66 ± 3.14 vs. 7.46 ± 2.97, <i>p</i> = 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; <i>p</i> = 0.097). No patient preference for implant placement depth was noted. No significant differences in outcomes were found between centres.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 8","pages":"905-921"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70135","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.70135","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

内锥形连接深度为0.5 mm与1.5 mm的牙下放置种植体十年后的结果:一项多中心随机对照试验。
目的评价在愈合的骨嵴下放置0.5或1.5 mm的单牙种植体是否有任何临床益处。材料和方法60名部分无牙患者需要两个单一种植体支持冠,在6个中心进行裂口设计。每个部位被随机分配接受放置在牙下0.5或1.5毫米的种植体。患者在加载后随访10年。结果测量包括冠和种植体失败,并发症,使用粉红色美学评分(PES)评估美学,种植体周围边缘骨水平变化和患者偏好。结果8例患者失访。在种植体失败(7 vs 3, p = 0.125)、并发症(10 [18.5%]vs 7 [13%], p = 0.508)、PES(7.66±3.14 vs 7.46±2.97,p = 0.510)方面,组间差异无统计学意义。10年后,0.5 mm组患者的平均边缘骨丢失为0.38±0.84 mm,而1.5 mm组患者的平均边缘骨丢失为0.17±0.45 mm,差异无统计学意义(差异= -0.21 mm; 95% CI -0.47 ~ 0.04; p = 0.097)。没有注意到患者对种植体植入深度的偏好。研究中心之间的结果没有显著差异。结论牙冠下种植体放置在0.5或1.5 mm,当周围骨存在至少1mm时,似乎不会影响长期预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
11.60%
发文量
149
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书