Evidence Hub

Convex Versus Concave Emergence Profile of Implant‐Supported Crowns in the Aesthetic Zone: 3‐Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Janina Endres, F. Strauss, Marina Siegenthaler, N. Naenni, R. Jung, D. Thoma

Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2025

47 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 47 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free