Question · asked by 1 review
Tilting-type RDP (minor connector design) vs Functional and sanitary RDP designs: Patient satisfaction
- Population
- Partially edentulous patients with a distal-extension RDP (minor connector); cross-over
- Intervention
- Tilting-type RDP (minor connector design)
- Comparison
- Functional and sanitary RDP designs
- Outcome
- Patient satisfaction
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Tilting-type RDP (minor connector design) vs Functional and sanitary RDP designs Patient satisfaction · Partially edentulous patients with a distal-extension RDP (minor connector); cross-over Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | The tilting-type RDP significantly outscored the functional and sanitary designs for patient satisfaction; within-patient SDs not given, data narrative only | 1 study · 25 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.