Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35817419›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2022

Anterior implant restorations with a convex emergence profile increase the frequency of recession: 12-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Marina Siegenthaler, Franz J Strauss, Felix Gamper, Christoph H F Hämmerle, Ronald E Jung, Daniel S Thoma

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07637864 (Association Between Buccal Prosthetic Profile Angles at Different Supraplatform Zones and Peri-Implant Tissue Remodeling Around Bone-Level Implants), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07637864 active not recruitingnot on this map

Association Between Buccal Prosthetic Profile Angles at Different Supraplatform Zones and Peri-Implant Tissue Remodeling Around Bone-Level Implants: A Retrospective CBCT-Based Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorChang Gung Memorial HospitalRan2019 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsDental Implants, Early Peri-Implant Bone Remodeling, Peri-Implant Soft Tissue RemodelingArmsImplant-Supported Prosthetic Restoration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Influence of Concave Versus Convex Emergence Profiles on Midfacial Mucosal Stability-A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Peri-Implant Supracrestal Resiliency (PSR): A Geometric Determinant Guiding Emergence Profile Execution.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  11. Dual-Hybrid Treatment Approach for Peri-Implant Hard and Soft Tissue Stability.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Impact of the Buccal Dehiscence Morphotype on the Regenerative Strategy in Immediate Implant Placement.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  14. Emergence Profile Angle Matters-Restoring Peri-Implant Health by Adjusting Prosthetics-A Narrative Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marina SiegenthalerClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Franz J StraussClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5832-7327
Felix GamperClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Christoph H F HämmerleClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8280-7347
Ronald E JungClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2055-1320
Daniel S ThomaClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1764-7447

Funding

Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZürichDentsply SironaSSRD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo test whether the emergence profile (CONVEX or CONCAVE) of implant-supported crowns influences the mucosal margin stability up to 12 months after insertion of the final restoration. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty-seven patients with a single implant in the anterior region were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) CONVEX (n = 15), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a convex profile; (2) CONCAVE (n = 16), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a concave profile; (3) CONTROL (n = 16), no provisional (healing abutment only) and an implant-supported crown. All patients were recalled at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The stability of mucosal margin along with clinical, aesthetic, and profilometric outcomes as well as time and costs were evaluated. To predict the presence of recession, multivariable logistic regressions were performed and linear models using generalized estimation equations were conducted for the different outcomes.

resultsForty-four patients were available at 12 months post-loading. The frequency of mucosal recession amounted to 64.3% in group CONVEX, 14.3% in group CONCAVE, and 31.4% in group CONTROL. Regression models revealed that a CONVEX profile was significantly associated with the presence of recessions (odds ratio: 12.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.82-88.48, p = .01) compared with the CONCAVE profile. Pink aesthetic scores amounted to 5.9 in group CONVEX, 6.2 in group CONCAVE, and 5.4 in group CONTROL, with no significant differences between the groups (p = .735). Groups CONVEX and CONCAVE increased the appointments and costs compared with the CONTROL group.

conclusionsThe use of implant-supported provisionals with a CONCAVE emergence profile results in a greater stability of the mucosal margin compared with a CONVEX profile up to 12 months of loading. This is accompanied, however, by increased time and costs compared with the absence of a provisional and may not necessarily enhance the aesthetic outcomes.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register; DRKS00009420.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Implants, Single-ToothCrownsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedEsthetics, DentalHumansDental Implantsdental implantsemergence profileimplant-supported crownsinterim dental prosthesismucosal recessions

Identifiers

PMID35817419
PMCPMC9804465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.