Question · asked by 1 review

Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier: Recurrence of peri-implantitis

Population
People with at least one dental implant affected by perimplantitis
Intervention
Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim)
Comparison
Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier
Outcome
Recurrence of peri-implantitis

Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) showed no clear difference in recurrence of peri-implantitis compared with bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier
Recurrence of peri-implantitis · People with at least one dental implant affected by peri-implantitis · 4 years
Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) showed no clear difference in recurrence of peri-implantitis compared with bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri‐implantitis (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 2.0 [0.21, 18.98]1 study · 22 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri‐implantitis
2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
2011-06Not listedNot 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.