ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Accuracy of the Emergence Profile of Dental Implant Restorations using different gingival mask techniques.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate reproduction of peri-implant soft tissue contours is essential for the esthetics, phonetics, hygiene, and long-term success of implant-supported restorations. Gingival mask (GM) techniques play an important role in reproducing the emergence profile (EP) and peri-implant soft tissue contour. This study evaluated and compared the accuracy of crown adaptation using conventional, 3D-printed, and digital GM workflows. Materials and Methods: Forty zirconia crowns were fabricated on implant standard abutments with a straight EP using a maxillary master model obtained from a patient missing left maxillary first molar. A single implant was placed using a guided surgical protocol and cone beam computed tomography. The crowns were divided into four groups (n=10) according to the GM technique: conventional, 3D-printed, adapted digital (DI-1), and non-adapted digital (DI-2). Crown adaptation and gap dimensions were evaluated using the digital subtraction method and a high-resolution desktop optical scanner. Scanning was performed for the abutment, internal crown surface, and the seated crown-abutment assembly. Measurements were obtained at buccal (B), palatal (P), mesial (M), and distal (D) points. Statistical analysis included Levene's test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's and Games-Howell post hoc tests (P 0.05). Results: The adapted digital GM group showed the lowest mean gap values at all measurement points, indicating superior adaptation accuracy, whereas the 3D-printed GM group showed the highest gap values. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among all GM groups at all measurement points (P=0.001). Post hoc analysis showed significant differences among most groups; however, no significant differences were found between the conventional and 3D-printed GM groups at point B or between the conventional and DI-2 groups at points P, M and D. Conclusions: GM techniques significantly influenced the accuracy of implant-supported restorations. The adapted digital GM workflow demonstrated superior adaptation and more accurate reproduction of peri-implant tissue contours and emergence profiles compared with the other techniques.
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.