SynthesisJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Influence of Concave Versus Convex Emergence Profiles on Midfacial Mucosal Stability-A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically evaluate the influence of concave versus convex emergence profiles on midfacial mucosal stability in partially edentulous patients restored with implant-supported single restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251139042). An electronic search in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase was performed up to May 7, 2026. Eligible studies included RCTs comparing concave (test group) and convex (control group) transmucosal prosthetic designs and reporting midfacial mucosal level changes (mm). Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2) were performed independently. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using weighted mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsFour RCTs including 144 implants with a 12-month follow-up were included. Of these, 128 implants contributed to the quantitative synthesis, with 66 implants allocated to the concave/modified emergence profile group and 62 implants allocated to the convex/non-concave emergence profile group. The pooled analysis demonstrated a mean difference of -0.31 mm (95% CI -0.63 to 0.02; p = 0.064), indicating a trend toward greater midfacial mucosal recession with convex emergence profiles compared with concave designs. Between-study heterogeneity was low to moderate (I
conclusionsConvex emergence profiles are associated with a tendency toward increased midfacial mucosal recession. Concave profiles are preferable to support peri-implant soft-tissue stability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Emergence profile design should be considered an integral component of prosthetic and surgical planning. The use of concave transmucosal contours during provisionalization and definitive restoration may contribute to improved peri-implant soft tissue stability and enhanced esthetic outcomes.
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.