Question · asked by 1 review
1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement: Patient preference including aesthetics (split-mouth studies only)
- Population
- People with dental implants
- Intervention
- 1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement
- Comparison
- 2-stage (submerged) implant placement
- Outcome
- Patient preference including aesthetics (split-mouth studies only)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement Patient preference including aesthetics (split-mouth studies only) · Any subject receiving osseointegrated dental implants · 6 to 12 months after loading The review found no eligible studies for this question. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes | Planned outcome (patient preference including aesthetics, only in split-mouth studies); no included trial reported it. | 0 studies | No studies found |
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: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2009-01 | 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.