Question · asked by 1 review
Astra cylindrical turned surface implants vs Astra cylindrical TiO2-blasted surface implants: Implant failure
- Population
- Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
- Intervention
- Astra cylindrical turned surface implants
- Comparison
- Astra cylindrical TiO2-blasted surface implants
- Outcome
- Implant failure
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Astra cylindrical turned surface implants vs Astra cylindrical TiO2-blasted surface implants Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 5 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane All outcomes | Primary pairwise data unusable (implant numbers per surface not disclosed); one turned implant failed early. Data used only for the turned-vs-roughened secondary analysis (Wennstrom 2004) | 1 study · 51 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: different types of dental implants 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2014-01 | 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.