Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40137372›Full record

ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025

Intraoperative Profiling of the Supracrestal Implant Complex Minimizes Peri-Implant Crestal Bone Remodeling: The Guided Bone Profiling Concept.

Milan Stoilov, Joerg Winterhoff, Lea Stoilov, Anastasia Timoschenko, Helmut Stark, Florian Heuser, Michael Marder, Dominik Kraus, Norbert Enkling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Milan StoilovDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-0137
Joerg WinterhoffDepartment of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Lea StoilovDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
Anastasia TimoschenkoDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
Helmut StarkDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
Florian HeuserDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
Michael MarderDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1365-7170
Dominik KrausDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
Norbert EnklingDepartment of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4698-8101

Funding

Research Group for Oral Implantology and Biomaterial Research N-032.0016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Early-stage bone resorption following implant placement can significantly impact the long-term success of implants. This study evaluates whether a fully digitally planned implant position based on the E-point concept, along with guided profiling of the supracrestal complex, contributes to improved stability of peri-implant bone levels. (2) Methods: 29 implants were placed in 27 patients utilizing both immediate (Group 1; n = 19) and delayed placement (Group 2; n = 10) protocols. Implant position and emergence profile were preoperatively determined and consistently executed through guided surgery and CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations. Due to the subcrestal positioning of the implant, a corresponding bone profiler with a guide pin was used to shape the emergence profile and prevent the provisional restoration from impinging on the proximal bone. Provisional restorations were immediately placed to support the emergence profile. Bone level changes were documented radiographically over a two-year period. The first Bone-to-Implant Contact Level (∆ fBIC), change in highest approximal Bone Level (∆ haBL), and formation of an emergence profile width (WEP) were measured. (3) Results: All implants and restorations survived after two years, no significant change in first Bone-to-Implant Contact Level (∆ fBIC = 0 ± 0.02 mm), no change in highest approximal Bone Level (∆ haBL) of -0.23 mm ± 0.71 mm, and formation of an emergence profile width (WEP) averaging 0.18 ± 0.19 mm. (4) Conclusions: Despite the initial stress on the bone caused by bone profiling, guided implant placement and bone shaping, supported by an immediate provisional, have a positive effect on peri-implant bone stability.

Indexed as

bone remodelingemergence profileimmediate implantimmediate loadingimmediate restorationimplant successlate implant

Identifiers

PMID40137372
PMCPMC11942669

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.