Question · asked by 1 review

Mechanical debridement with titanium curettes vs Ultrasonic debridement: Change in probing pocket depth (PPD)

Population
Adults with dental implants and peri-implant mucositis at baseline
Intervention
Mechanical debridement with titanium curettes
Comparison
Ultrasonic debridement
Outcome
Change in probing pocket depth (PPD)

Mechanical debridement with titanium curettes showed no clear difference in change in probing pocket depth compared with mechanical debridement with ultrasonic device; GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Mechanical debridement with titanium curettes vs Mechanical debridement with ultrasonic device
Change in probing pocket depth · Adults with dental implants and peri-implant mucositis at baseline · 6 months
Mechanical debridement with titanium curettes showed no clear difference in change in probing pocket depth compared with mechanical debridement with ultrasonic device; GRADE not reported.
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and recovering soft tissue health around dental… (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -0.40 [-1.14, 0.34]1 study · 31 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and recovering soft tissue health around dental implants
2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
2010-06-02Not listedNot 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.