Abstract: 〗［Abstract］ Objective〖HTSS〗〓To observe the difference of submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants on patients missing one molar with thin gingival.
〖HTH〗〖WTHZ〗Methods〖HTSS〗〓Twentyfour patients in our department who had no contraindication of dental implants and missed one molar with less than 1.5 mm gingival were chosed and separated into 2 random groups with the method of numbers and draw. Patients of one group were implanted with nonsubmerged SS implants of OSSTEM and  patients of another group were implanted with submerged TS implants of OSSTEM. At the time of implant surgery, second stage surgery, restoration finish and 1 year later, variance of gingival thickness，Jemt index and crestal bone loss were observed.
〖HTH〗〖WTHZ〗Results〖HTSS〗〓All implants of 2 groups were successful with the 100.0%, without  looseness and inflammation and crestalbone lost above 2mm. Gingival thickness of SS group was decreased, but that of the TS group was increased first and then decreased. There was no statistic difference between 2 groups about gingival thickness at the different time（P＞005）.There was no statistic difference between 2 groups about Jemt index of gingival papilla after restoration and 1years later（P＞005）,but there was statistic difference in the TS groups with different time（P＜005）. Volume of crestal bone loss in two groups both were increased as time went by. There was no statistic difference between 2 groups（P＞005）, but there was statistic difference between 2 groups about time and interaction with time and groups(P＜005).
〖HTH〗〖WTHZ〗Conclusion〖HTSS〗〓There is no influence of two surgical methods on variation of gingival thickness and Jemt index. Volume of crestal bone loss between the SS group and the TS group both increased. We would like to choose correct implants tothe patients missing one molar withcorresponding indication.

Key words: dental implants, submerged implants, nonsubmerged implants, gingival