Implants placed subcrestally may offer improved emergence profile, reduced mucositis risk, and better integration within esthetically demanding areas. 15he distribution of peri-implant stress is also influenced by implant design and material characteristics.The most popular material for dental implants, titanium, offers superior mechanical strength, osseointegration, and biocompatibility.Its high modulus of elasticity in comparison to bone; however, may result in marginal IntroductIonCrestal bone preservation is crucial for the long-term viability of dental implants, as it promotes both implant stability and esthetic results in patients who are partially or completely edentulous. 1 The loss of bone around implants, especially in the crestal area, has been connected to surgical trauma, occlusal overload, micro-gap colonization, and biological width reformation. 2,3Crestal bone loss of less than 2 mm during the first year and no more than 0.2 mm per year after that is usually regarded as a successful implant. 4,5restal bone resorption can compromise function and esthetics by clinically presenting as gingival recession and loss of interdental papillae.Several variables, including bone density, implant design, depth of placement, and loading protocols, influence the biomechanical environment around implants. 6,7In particular, implant depth has garnered attention, as subcrestal placement may reduce stress concentrations at the crestal bone level and support more favorable soft tissue architecture. 891011 Subcrestal implant placement was originally suggested by Brnemark to accommodate bone remodeling and to prevent early implant exposure. 12Subsequent animal and human studies demonstrated less marginal bone loss and better soft tissue stability around implants placed below the crestal level. 13,
Sharma et al. (Thu,) studied this question.