The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Study of the Crestal vs Subcrestal Placement of Dental Implants via Radiographic and Clinical Evaluation

Puja Chatterjee, R Shashikala, Anuradha Navneetham

Keywords : Crestal bone levels, Crestal bone loss, Dental implants, Equicrestal, Prosthetic loading, Radiographic evaluation, Subcrestal

Citation Information : Chatterjee P, Shashikala R, Navneetham A. Comparative Study of the Crestal vs Subcrestal Placement of Dental Implants via Radiographic and Clinical Evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (6):623-627.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3350

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-09-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The study aims at using the level/depth of implant placement (equicrestal or cretsal) as the key parameter in measuring the vertical crestal bone loss (CBL) mesially and distally, using periapical radiographs (IOPARs) taken at 1-, 3-, and 6-months interval, postprosthetic loading. Materials and methods: Patients (n = 40; 18–65 years), with edentulous space anteriorly or posteriorly, were randomly divided into two groups, namely, group I (equicrestal) and group II (subcrestal) with 20 patients in each group. Implants were placed at an edentulous site (delayed implants), after obtaining cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Prosthetic loading (following osseointegration) was done within 3 months of implant placement. The patients were followed up and IOPAR were taken to measure CBL at 1-, 3-, and 6-months interval, postloading. The CBL between the two groups was compared using IOPARs. The data obtained was compiled and unpaired Student's t-test was done for statistical analysis. Results: After the statistical analysis of the data obtained during follow-up, CBL was measured radiographically. Mesial and distal vertical bone loss was charted and compared between the two groups. The mean bone loss on the mesial aspect for group I implants is 0.39 mm and for group II implants, it is 0.27 mm, 6 months postloading, determined radiographically. Conclusion: Subcrestally placed implants are conducive to the overall oral rehabilitation, as it has been seen to preserve marginal peri-implant bone for longer durations than their equicrestally placed counterparts, within the limitations of the current study. Clinical significance: The study prospectively relates the level of implant shoulder with respect to alveolar crestal bone, postloading. Following radiographic comparison between the two groups, significant clinical findings indicated that better esthetics and stability were seen in the subcrestally placed implants. This proves that implant placement level directly influences crestal bone levels; hence, indirectly affects esthetics and function.

PDF Share
  1. Romanos GE, Aydin E, Gaertner K, et al. Long-term results after subcrestal or crestal placement of delayed loaded implants. Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2015;17(1):133–141. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12084.
  2. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Shibli JA, et al. Equicrestal and subcrestal dental implants: A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of nine retrieved human implants. J Periodontol 2011;82(5):708–715.
  3. Nagarajan B, Murthy V, Livingstone D, et al. Evaluation of crestal bone loss around implants placed at equicrestal and subcrestal levels before loading: a prospective clinical study. J Clin Diag Res 2015;9(12):ZC47. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13911.7000.
  4. Albrektsson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1(1):11–25.
  5. Sotto–Maior BS, Lima CD, Senna PM, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages. Braz Oral Res 2014;28(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2014.vol28.0023.
  6. Gualini F, Salina S, Rigotti F, et al. Subcrestal placement of dental implants with an internal conical connection of 0.5 mm versus 1.5 mm: Outcome of a multicentre randomised controlled trial 1 year after loading. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10(1):73–82. PMID: 28327696.
  7. Palacios–Garzón N, Velasco–Ortega E, López–López J. Bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal and crestal level: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials 2019;5;12(1):154. DOI: 10.3390/ma12010154.
  8. Ghahroudi AR, Talaeepour AR, Mesgarzadeh A, et al. Radiographic vertical bone loss evaluation around dental implants following one year of functional loading. J Dent (Tehran) 2010;7(2):89–97. PMCID: PMC3184744.
  9. Maier FM. Initial crestal bone loss after implant placement with flapped or flapless surgery: A prospective cohort study. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(4):876–883. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4283.
  10. Pellicer–Chover H, Peñarrocha–Diago M, Peñarrocha–Oltra D, et al. Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cirugia Bucal 2016;21(1):e103–e110. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20747.
  11. Veis A, Parissis N, Tsirlis A, et al. Evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss using modified abutment connections at various crestal level placements. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30(6):609–617. PMID: 20967307.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.