Tokuc, BerkayKan, BahadirAğız,Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi / Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery2024-05-252024-05-25202300905-71611600-050110.1111/clr.141902-s2.0-85173437988https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14190https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1312Tokuc, Berkay/0000-0002-1149-2886; Kan, Bahadir/0000-0001-6980-2085Objectives: The objective of this study, which included a 5-year follow-up, was to compare peri-implant soft tissue health, crestal bone loss (CBL), and buccal bone thickness (BBT) around triangular cross-section neck (TN) or round neck (RN) implants, using cone-beam computed tomography.Materials and Methods: This study was initially designed as a prospective 1-year randomized controlled study and then extended with a 5-year retrospective evaluation of clinical and radiographic records. In the initial 1-year study, a total of 20edentulous patients receiving 40 implants with similar diameters were randomly assigned to the RN or TN groups using a split-mouth design. Pocket probing depths (PPD), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI) were recorded at postoperative month 12. CBL and BBT at three levels (0, -2, and -4 mm) were evaluated 1 year after insertion. Five years after insertion, PPD, PI, GI, CBL, and BBT were recorded as patients were recalled for clinical and radiographic monitoring.Results: Nineteen patients completed the study. After 5 years, no significant differences in PPD, PI, and GI scores and BBT values between the two groups (p > .05). The mean +/- SD CBL values at the final follow-up visit were -0.71 +/- 0.69 mm for TN and -1.03 +/- 0.86 mm for RN (p < .01).Conclusions: These results suggest better crestal bone preservation using implants with TN when compared to RN after a 5-year follow-up. However, TN showed similar results to RN regarding peri-implant soft tissue health and BBT.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessbuccal bone thicknesscrestal bone lossneck designperi-implant soft tissuetriangular cross-section neckArticleQ1Q1341113091317WOS:00107956630000137787153