Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates: Augmentation procedure failure
- Population
- Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants
- Intervention
- Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers
- Comparison
- Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates
- Outcome
- Augmentation procedure failure
Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in augmentation procedure failure compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants · About 4.5 months Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in augmentation procedure failure compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental… (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes | OR 2.22 [0.17, 28.86] | 1 study · 22 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: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2009-06 | 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.