Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
One-year marginal bone loss and survival rate of triangular-neck dental implants: a systematic review and
Ziqi Xie1, Sara Reda Sammour2,3, Ryuji Shigemitsu4
1Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan.
Purpose:
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of dental implants with a triangular neck, focusing on 1-year marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant survival rate.
Methods:
This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was completed on June 8, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective studies, and case series that studied ≥ 10 implants, reporting on triangular-neck implants, were included. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was used for RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute case series checklist was used for nonrandomized studies. The results were summarized using a random-effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to determine the certainty of evidence.
Results:
The search provided 115 titles after removal of duplicates. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, five of which provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis. The pooled analysis demonstrated a 1-year mean MBL of 0.35 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.46; heterogeneity; I2 = 23.2%; p = 0.25) and an implant survival rate of 97.8% (95% CI: 95.4%-99.4%; I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.96).
Conclusions:
Available single-arm evidence indicates that triangular-neck implants were associated with high implant survival rates and limited marginal bone level changes during the first year of follow-up. However, the current evidence does not permit conclusions regarding comparative clinical benefits relative to other implant designs.
