Question · asked by 1 review
Titanium (Procera) abutment vs Gold-alloy (machined UCLA) abutment: Success / prosthetic complications (4 years)
- Population
- Patients with single-tooth implant crowns; split-mouth, 4-year
- Intervention
- Titanium (Procera) abutment
- Comparison
- Gold-alloy (machined UCLA) abutment
- Outcome
- Success / prosthetic complications (4 years)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Titanium (Procera) abutment vs Gold-alloy (machined UCLA) abutment Success / prosthetic complications (4 years) · Patients with single-tooth implant crowns; split-mouth, 4-year · 4 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | 100% success, no prosthetic complications, and a similar loss of marginal bone (0.4 mm) in both groups (narrative) | 1 study · 20 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.