ReviewJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Triangular
Review in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 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
Objectives: This literature review evaluates the differences between triangular and circular neck designs and their influences on marginal bone remodelling as well as peri-implant hard and soft tissue health. The primary aim was to compare implant survival and hard-tissue outcomes (peri-implant bone level, implant stability quotient and insertion torque). The secondary aim was to compare soft-tissue outcomes (probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index and full-mouth plaque score). Material and Methods: The literature review followed PRISMA statement and used a PICOS-based focus question. An extensive search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies published between December 1, 2015, and December 1, 2025. Inclusion criteria focused on human adult clinical studies, triangular vs circular neck implants, ≥ 3 months follow-up, and reporting at least one relevant clinical/radiographic parameter. Study risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists. Results: From 2999 identified records, 5 studies were included, comprising a total of 86 patients with follow-up ranging from 3 to 60 months. All studies compared triangular and circular neck implants. Implant survival was 100% in all studies. No significant differences were found in insertion torque, implant stability quotient and soft-tissue parameters. Two studies reported significantly lower (P ≤ 0.05) peri-implant bone level with triangular neck implants, while others found no significant differences. Conclusions: The results indicate that triangular and circular implant neck designs demonstrate comparable clinical performance, with no clear differences in implant survival, insertion torque, implant stability quotient, and in soft-tissue outcomes. Peri-implant bone level may be lower with triangular neck implants in some settings, but findings are inconsistent across studies and limited.
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.