Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42322345
Influence of Concave Versus Convex Emergence Profiles on Midfacial Mucosal Stability-A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Pirc Miha, Balzarini Priscilla, Esquivel Jonathan, et al. · Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1111/jerd.70210
Findings
Population Partially edentulous patients with implant-supported single crowns
5 findings
| Concave emergence profile | Convex (non-concave) emergence profile | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) 12 months · Controlled clinical settings; healed or post-extraction sites · Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Siegenthaler et al. | MD -0.24 [-0.63, 0.14] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Concave emergence profile | Convex (non-concave) emergence profile | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) 12 months · Controlled clinical settings; healed or post-extraction sites · Overall (random-effects REML) | MD -0.31 [-0.63, 0.02] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 128 participants |
| Concave emergence profile | Convex (non-concave) emergence profile | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) 12 months · Controlled clinical settings; healed or post-extraction sites · Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Wang et al. | MD -0.12 [-0.51, 0.27] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Concave emergence profile | Convex (non-concave) emergence profile | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) 12 months · Controlled clinical settings; healed or post-extraction sites · Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Barwacz et al. | MD -0.43 [-0.70, -0.16] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Concave emergence profile | Convex (non-concave) emergence profile | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) 12 months · Controlled clinical settings; healed or post-extraction sites · Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Koutouzis et al. | MD -0.37 [-0.76, 0.03] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
Included primary studies 4
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barwacz et al. 2025 Effect of CAD/CAM Abutment Morphology on the Outcomes of Implant Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. PMID:39641983 | 2025 | this review only | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Koutouzis et al. 2019 The influence of abutment macro-design on clinical and radiographic peri-implant tissue changes for guided, placed, and restored implants:… PMID:31180160 | 2019 | this review only | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Siegenthaler et al. 2022 Anterior implant restorations with a convex emergence profile increase the frequency of recession: 12-month results of a randomized… PMID:35817419 | 2022 | this review only | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Wang et al. 2022 Influence of buccal emergence profile designs on peri-implant tissues: A randomized controlled trial. PMID:35389559 | 2022 | this review only | Midfacial mucosal level change (mm) | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Partially edentulous patients rehabilitated with an implant-supported single crown | Partially edentulous adults with implant-supported single restorations (144 implants; 128 pooled) |
| Intervention | Concave emergence profile | Concave/modified emergence profile abutments (n=66 pooled implants) |
| Comparison | Convex emergence profile | Convex/non-concave emergence profile (n=62 pooled implants) |
| Outcomes | Midfacial mucosal stability | Midfacial mucosal level change in mm (4 RCTs) |
| Study designs | RCTs | RCTs (n=4) |
| Timing | Not specified | 12 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |