Question · asked by 1 review
Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors: Natural tooth intrusion
- Population
- Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth
- Intervention
- Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors
- Comparison
- Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors
- Outcome
- Natural tooth intrusion
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors Natural tooth intrusion · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth · 5 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | Intrusion occurred in 44% of FDPs with rigid connectors and 66% with non-rigid connectors (average 0.18 mm and 0.28 mm respectively) | 1 study · 42 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2011-03 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.