Cited 0 times in 
Cited 0 times in 
Convex Versus Concave Emergence Profile of Implant-Supported Crowns in the Aesthetic Zone: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Endres, Janina | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Strauss, Franz J. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Siegenthaler, Marina | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Naenni, Nadja | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Jung, Ronald E. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Thoma, Daniel S. | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-10-28T02:40:03Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-10-28T02:40:03Z | - |
| dc.date.created | 2025-09-23 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-08 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0303-6979 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/208025 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Aim To evaluate the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported restorations with different emergence profiles (CONVEX vs. CONCAVE).Materials and Methods A 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.Results Out 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).Conclusion The 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. | - |
| dc.language | English | - |
| dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell | - |
| dc.relation.isPartOf | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY | - |
| dc.relation.isPartOf | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Adult | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Crowns* | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Dental Implants, Single-Tooth* | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Dental Prosthesis Design* | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported* | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Esthetics, Dental* | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Female | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Follow-Up Studies | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Gingival Recession / etiology | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Humans | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Male | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Middle Aged | - |
| dc.subject.MESH | Treatment Outcome | - |
| dc.title | Convex Versus Concave Emergence Profile of Implant-Supported Crowns in the Aesthetic Zone: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.contributor.googleauthor | Endres, Janina | - |
| dc.contributor.googleauthor | Strauss, Franz J. | - |
| dc.contributor.googleauthor | Siegenthaler, Marina | - |
| dc.contributor.googleauthor | Naenni, Nadja | - |
| dc.contributor.googleauthor | Jung, Ronald E. | - |
| dc.contributor.googleauthor | Thoma, Daniel S. | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/jcpe.70018 | - |
| dc.relation.journalcode | J01337 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1600-051X | - |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 40836504 | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | aesthetic zone | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | emergence profile | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | implant-supported restoration | - |
| dc.subject.keyword | mucosal recession | - |
| dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Thoma, Daniel S. | - |
| dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-105013788116 | - |
| dc.identifier.wosid | 001554667800001 | - |
| dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, , 2025-08 | - |
| dc.identifier.rimsid | 89651 | - |
| dc.type.rims | ART | - |
| dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
| dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | aesthetic zone | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | emergence profile | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | implant-supported restoration | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | mucosal recession | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | PROVISIONAL RESTORATIONS | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | ANTERIOR MAXILLA | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | CONSENSUS REPORT | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | IMMEDIATE | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | CONTOUR | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | RECESSION | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | PRESSURE | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | POSITION | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | ABUTMENT | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | DESIGN | - |
| dc.type.docType | Article; Early Access | - |
| dc.description.isOpenAccess | Y | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
| dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine | - |
| dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.