Question · asked by 1 review
Early loading vs Conventional loading: Prosthesis failure
- Population
- Patients who are having osseointegrated root-form dental implants
- Intervention
- Early loading
- Comparison
- Conventional loading
- Outcome
- Prosthesis failure
It is very uncertain whether early loading changes prosthesis failure compared with conventional loading (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early loading vs Conventional loading Prosthesis failure · Patients who are having osseointegrated root-form dental implants · 1 year It is very uncertain whether early loading changes prosthesis failure compared with conventional loading (very low certainty). Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 5.00 [0.63, 39.67] | 1 study · 48 participants | Very low |
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: different times for loading dental implants 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2012-06 | 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.