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
{"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, Riccardo Federico Visconti, Federico Gualini, Fabio Rigotti, Cristian Mazzarini, Diego Longhin, Mauro Grigoletto, Amerigo Giudice, Katia Greco, 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.
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.