9 39

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.authorEndres, Janina-
dc.contributor.authorStrauss, Franz J.-
dc.contributor.authorSiegenthaler, Marina-
dc.contributor.authorNaenni, Nadja-
dc.contributor.authorJung, Ronald E.-
dc.contributor.authorThoma, Daniel S.-
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-28T02:40:03Z-
dc.date.available2025-10-28T02:40:03Z-
dc.date.created2025-09-23-
dc.date.issued2025-08-
dc.identifier.issn0303-6979-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/208025-
dc.description.abstractAim 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.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell-
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY-
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHCrowns*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Implants, Single-Tooth*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Prosthesis Design*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported*-
dc.subject.MESHEsthetics, Dental*-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHFollow-Up Studies-
dc.subject.MESHGingival Recession / etiology-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.titleConvex Versus Concave Emergence Profile of Implant-Supported Crowns in the Aesthetic Zone: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.googleauthorEndres, Janina-
dc.contributor.googleauthorStrauss, Franz J.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSiegenthaler, Marina-
dc.contributor.googleauthorNaenni, Nadja-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJung, Ronald E.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorThoma, Daniel S.-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jcpe.70018-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01337-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-051X-
dc.identifier.pmid40836504-
dc.subject.keywordaesthetic zone-
dc.subject.keywordemergence profile-
dc.subject.keywordimplant-supported restoration-
dc.subject.keywordmucosal recession-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorThoma, Daniel S.-
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-105013788116-
dc.identifier.wosid001554667800001-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, , 2025-08-
dc.identifier.rimsid89651-
dc.type.rimsART-
dc.description.journalClass1-
dc.description.journalClass1-
dc.subject.keywordAuthoraesthetic zone-
dc.subject.keywordAuthoremergence profile-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorimplant-supported restoration-
dc.subject.keywordAuthormucosal recession-
dc.subject.keywordPlusPROVISIONAL RESTORATIONS-
dc.subject.keywordPlusANTERIOR MAXILLA-
dc.subject.keywordPlusCONSENSUS REPORT-
dc.subject.keywordPlusIMMEDIATE-
dc.subject.keywordPlusCONTOUR-
dc.subject.keywordPlusRECESSION-
dc.subject.keywordPlusPRESSURE-
dc.subject.keywordPlusPOSITION-
dc.subject.keywordPlusABUTMENT-
dc.subject.keywordPlusDESIGN-
dc.type.docTypeArticle; Early Access-
dc.description.isOpenAccessY-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscie-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscopus-
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategoryDentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine-
dc.relation.journalResearchAreaDentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine-
Appears in Collections:
7. Others (기타) > Others (기타) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.