Titanium framework FDP vs High-gold content alloy framework FDP: Unacceptable restoration (poor marginal integrity / restoration removal)
Titanium framework FDP led to higher unacceptable restoration (poor marginal integrity / restoration… compared with high-gold content alloy framework FDP; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Titanium framework FDP vs High-gold content alloy framework FDP Unacceptable restoration (poor marginal integrity / restoration removal) · Partially edentulous patients receiving tooth-supported FDPs Titanium framework FDP led to higher unacceptable restoration (poor marginal integrity / restoration… compared with high-gold content alloy framework FDP; GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 10.23 [1.41, 74.44] | 1 study · 47 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.