Question · asked by 1 review
Flapless implant placement vs Conventional flap elevation: Biological complications
- Population
- People with dental implants
- Intervention
- Flapless implant placement
- Comparison
- Conventional flap elevation
- Outcome
- Biological complications
Flapless implant placement showed no clear difference in biological complications compared with conventional flap elevation; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Flapless implant placement vs Conventional flap elevation Biological complications · Patients receiving dental implants Flapless implant placement showed no clear difference in biological complications compared with conventional flap elevation; GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 5.58 [0.65, 48.23] | 1 study · 80 participants | GRADE not reported |
Flapless implant placement vs Conventional flap elevation Biological complications · Patients receiving dental implants Flapless implant placement showed no clear difference in biological complications compared with conventional flap elevation; GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants (2007) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD006697, superseded | RR 1.0 [0.34, 2.93] | 1 study · 40 participants | GRADE not reported |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: management of soft tissues for dental implants 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2011-06-09 | 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.