Clinical and radiographic results of crestal vs. subcrestal placement of implants in posterior areas: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants with platform-switching and internal conical connection placed at crestal and subcrestal levels in posterior areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen partially edentulous patients with at least two adjacent missing teeth in posterior areas unilaterally or bilaterally were included. Forty-two implants were placed randomly at the crestal or subcrestal (1 mm) level in a split-mouth design. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with screw retention were delivered after 4 months of healing. Clinical and radiological measurements were performed at implant placement (T0), restoration delivery (T1), and 1-year follow-up after loading (T2). MBL was calculated as the change in distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first radiographically visible bone-implant contact. A repeated-measures mixed ANOVA followed by a paired Student's t-test with the Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with thirty-eight implants completed the study at T2. The MBL was lower in the subcrestal group than in the crestal group (0.04 ± 0.08 vs. 0.17 ± 0.17 mm, p = 0.004). The peri-implant probing depth (PD) was 2.31 ± 0.48 mm in the subcrestal group and 1.92 ± 0.43 mm in the crestal group; this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Intragroup comparison showed no significant differences in MBL, or PD around the crestal group and subcrestal group from T1 to T2. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of functional loading, subcrestal placement of implants with platform-switching and internal conical connection showed lower MBL and was associated with greater PD and peri-implant soft tissue height than implants placed at the crestal level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".