Influence of implant restorative emergence angle and contour on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant restorative emergence angle and profile may have a negative impact on peri-implant marginal bone level and may increase the risk of developing peri-implantitis. However, the role of these prosthetic features on peri-implant health is still unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of implant restorations with an emergence angle of >30° in comparison to those with ≤30° in terms of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, periodontal parameters, and prevalence rate of peri-implantitis. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify observational studies that compared implant restorations with an emergence angle of >30° to those with ≤30°. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Four studies with 912 dental implants in 397 participants were included in the present review. Of these, 455 implants had restorations with an emergence angle of >30°, while the remaining implants had restorative emergence angle of ≤30°. The follow-up time varied between 3.8 and 10.9 years. Implant restorations with an emergence angle of ≤30° were associated with less changes in peri-implant marginal bone level compared to those with emergence angle of >30°. The difference, however, was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.72; p = 0.09). In platform-matched implants, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant in favor of implant restorations with emergence angle of ≤30°. In terms of emergence profile, implant restorations with convex profile had significantly higher rate of peri-implantitis (57.8%) compared to implant restorations with concave or straight profile (21.3%) (risk ratio 2.32; 95% CI 1.12-4.82; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, implant restorations with an emergence angles of >30° or ≤30° seem to have no significant influence on peri-implant marginal bone level. Platform-matched implants with an emergence angle of ≤30° may have positive effects on the peri-implant marginal bone level changes, but the evidence support is of low to moderate certainty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".