Question · asked by 1 review
Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors: Prosthesis survival and crestal bone loss (5 years)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors Prosthesis survival and crestal bone loss (5 years) · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth · 5 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | No significant differences between the two types of connectors with regard to prosthesis survival or crestal bone loss at 5 years (narrative) | 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 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.