Background Among the legends circulating in implant dentistry there is the belief that aesthetics can be improved by placing implants in a subcrestal position.In literature, there are only a few RCT evaluating the differences between crestal and subcrestal placement and their main outcome is limited to short term bone loss.The influence of implant depth in subcrestal placement on the mid-long term esthetic and biological outcomes remains poorly investigated, especially in conical connection implant. Aim/Hypothesis To evaluate if the placement of single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests has an impact on long term esthetic and biological outcomes. Material and Methods Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns were recruited from six centres. According to a split-mouth design , the two sites were randomly allocated either to 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestal implant placement. During the healing period of 3 months, surgical sites in aesthetic areas were closed while a one-stage approach with transgingival healing screw was followed in non-aesthetic areas . Provisional acrylic crowns were delivered and were replaced after 2 months by definitive metal-ceramic crowns. Patients were followed to 3 years after loading. Outcome measures were- crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference, recorded by blinded assessors. Results At delivery of definitive crowns, 2 months after loading, the mean pink aesthetic score was 11.2 ± 1.9 and 11.1 ± 1.5 for the 0.5 and 1.5 mm group, respectively. At 3 years after loading, the mean pink aesthetic score was 12 ± 1.9 and 12.2 ± 1.8 for the 0.5 and 1.5 mm group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 2 months (P = 0.626), at 1 year (P = 0.920) or at 3 years (P = 0.296). Three years after loading, patients of the 0.5 mm group lost on average 0.34 ± 0.87 mm and those of the 1.5 mm group 0.19 ± 0.54 mm, the difference being statistically significant (difference = 0.15 mm; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.046). The implant placement was not reflected in patient preference. There were no differences in outcomes among centres. Conclusion and clinical implications Both surgical protocols resulted in very high esthetic outcome (PES > 12) and minimal bone resorption (<0.5 mm) after 3 years. A slightly lower bone resorption was measured with 1.5 mm subcrestal placement compared to 0.5 mm, with no impact on the esthetic score. This tends to show that deeper implant placement might be beneficial only regarding bone stability, which will be confirmed after 5 years of follow-up.