Diederik Hentenaar

135 Influence of the cervical crown contour Table 4. Marginal bone loss difference between T1 and T60 Total N Min (mm) Max (mm) Mean (mm) Median (mm) St. Deviation Mesial implant site 67 0.00 1.84 0.14 0.00 0.34 Distal implant site 67 0.00 1.92 0.26 0,00 0.47 Table 5. Pearson correlation of mesial and distal crown contour (angle) and marginal implant bone loss Difference in bone loss between T1 and T60 Height Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 mm 0.072 0.562 67 Mesial site 2 mm -0.043 0.731 67 3 mm -0.01 0.937 67 1 mm -0.031 0.801 67 Distal site 2 mm 0.057 0.646 67 3 mm 0.029 0.816 67 Clinical parameters The clinical parameters at baseline and 5-year evaluation generally indicated healthy peri-implant soft tissues. At both evaluation moments, 67% of the implants showed no bleeding on probing as measured by the sulcus-bleeding index (24). The gingival index (25) indicated healthy soft tissue in 88% and 97% of the implants respectively. At baseline 5% of the implants showed probing pockets depth deeper than 5 mm whereas at the 5-year evaluation in 10% of the implants probing depths of 6mm and more were found (see clinical characteristics, Table 2). The amount of patients showings signs of peri-implant mucositis (bleeding score 1,2 and marginal bone loss ≤ 2mm) was 32% at 5 year evaluation. No implants showed signs of peri-implantitis (marginal bone loss > 2mm combined with bleeding and/or suppuration on probing). A significant correlation ( p = 0.003) between probing depth and emergence angles on the mesial 1 mm height was found. No other correlations were found regarding the different clinical parameters and crown contour (Table 6). 6