Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2025
Convex Versus Concave Emergence Profile of Implant-Supported Crowns in the Aesthetic Zone: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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.] · 2026Pooled it
- Immediate Loading on Tapered Versus Straight Multiple Implants: A 3-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Trial
- Convex Versus Concave Emergence Profile of Implant-Supported Crowns in the Aesthetic Zone: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Trial
- Prosthetic Retention Mode and Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Level at a Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up After Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Retrospective Clustered Cohort Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- 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.] · 2026Article
- 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.] · 2026Review
- 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.] · 2026Article
- Peri-Implant Inflammation Varies With Different Restorative Emergence Angles: An Histological Evaluation.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Emergence Angle and Emergence Profile in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Management of Advanced Peri-Implantitis with Staged Explantation and Delayed Re-Implantation in the Esthetic Zone.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Prosthetic Emergence Angles and Implant Outcomes: A Retrospective Study With at Least 5 Years of Follow-Up.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported restorations with different emergence profiles (CONVEX vs. CONCAVE). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 47 patients received a single implant in the aesthetic zone and were allocated to one of three groups: (1) CONVEX: customized provisional with a convex emergence profile (n = 15); (2) CONCAVE: customized provisional with a concave profile (n = 16); (3) Control: no provisional restoration (n = 16). Final crowns in groups CONVEX and CONCAVE were fabricated to replicate the emergence profile of the respective provisional restorations. Follow-ups were performed at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 3 years. The primary outcome was mid-facial mucosal recession and secondary outcomes included clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes as well as profilometric measurements. Multivariable logistic regressions and mixed-effects models were used to compare the groups.
resultsOut of the 47 patients originally included, 42 were available for re-examination at 3 years follow-up. At 3 years, the frequency of mucosal recession amounted to 46.7% in group CONVEX, 13.3% in group CONCAVE and 40.0% in group Control. Adjusted logistic regression models revealed that the CONVEX group was significantly more likely to show recessions at 3 years (odds ratios [ORs]: 7.3, 95% CI: 1.02-52.14, p = 0.048) when compared with the CONCAVE group. No statistically significant difference in recession frequency was observed between the CONVEX and CONCAVE groups between the 1- and 3-year follow-ups (OR: 3.7, 95% CI: 0.30-46.09, p = 0.303).
conclusionThe emergence profile design significantly influences soft tissue stability predominantly within the first year after crown insertion. Whenever clinically feasible, a CONCAVE profile is preferable in the aesthetic zone to maintain the level of the mid-facial mucosal margin and reduce the frequency of recessions.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00009420.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.