Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
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.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests confers any clinical benefits. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty 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.
resultsEight 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.
conclusionsSubcrestal 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.
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.