ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Comparison of implant placement at crestal and subcrestal levels in aesthetic zone: A finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Z-classification: an anatomy-based ridge-sinus-zygoma classification and decision funnel for zygomatic implantology.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Review
- Comparison of implant placement at crestal and subcrestal levels in aesthetic zone: A finite element analysis.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Crestal bone loss and soft tissue changes in epicrestal versus subcrestal implants: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- hADMSC-YTZP seeding improves peri-implant bone repair through increased expression of BMP-2, ALP, and OPG.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe success rate of the implant treatment, including aesthetics and long-term survival, relies heavily on preserving crestal peri-implant bone, as it determines the stability and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to demonstrate the stress differences in the crestal bone resulting from dental implant placement at various depths relative to the crestal bone level using finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree study models were prepared for implant placement at the crestal bone level (CL), 1 mm depth (SL-1), and 2 mm depth (SL-2). Implants were placed in the maxillary central incisor region of each model, and 100 N vertical and oblique forces were applied. The von Mises, maximum principal (tensile), and minimum principal (compressive) stresses were evaluated.
resultsThe CL model exhibited the highest stresses on the implant, abutment, and abutment screws under vertical and oblique forces. For maximum principal stress in the crestal bone under vertical force, the SL-2, SL-1, and CL models recorded values of 6.56, 6.26, and 5.77 MPa, respectively. Under oblique forces, stress values for SL-1, SL-2, and CL were 25.3, 24.91, and 23.76 MPa, respectively. The CL model consistently exhibited the lowest crestal bone stress at all loads and the highest stress values on the implant and its components. Moreover, considering the yield strengths of the materials, no mechanical or physiological complications were noted.
conclusionsPlacing the implant at the crestal level or subcrestally beyond the cortical layer could potentially reduce stress and minimize crestal bone loss. However, further studies are warranted for confirmation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.