To evaluate p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in CIN1 lesions looking for differences between cases that progress to CIN2/3 maintain CIN1 diagnosis, or spontaneously regress. Seventy-four CIN1 biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy was performed and 28.7% showed no lesion (regression), 37.9% maintained CIN1, and 33.4% progressed to CIN2/3. Immunostaining for p16(INK) (4a) was performed in the first biopsy and it was considered positive when there was strong and diffuse staining of the basal and parabasal layers. Pearson's chi-square was used to compare the groups (p ≤ 0.05). The age of the patients was similar. There was no significant difference in p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in the groups, however, statistical analyses showed a significant association when only the progression and regression groups were compared (p = 0.042). Considering p16(INK) (4a) positivity and the progression to CIN2/3, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values in our cohort were 45%, 75%, 47%, and 94%, respectively. We emphasize that CIN1 with p16(INK) (4a) staining was associated with lesion progression, but the sensitivity was not high. However, the negative predictive value was more reliable (94%) and p16(INK) (4a) may represent a useful biomarker that can identify CIN1 lesions that need particular attention, complementing morphology.