Question · asked by 1 review

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement: Complications (biological and biomechanical)

Population
People with dental implants
Intervention
1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement
Comparison
2-stage (submerged) implant placement
Outcome
Complications (biological and biomechanical)

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement showed no clear difference in complications (biological and biomechanical) compared with 2-stage (submerged) implant placement; GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement
Complications (biological and biomechanical) · Any subject receiving osseointegrated dental implants · 6 to 12 months after loading
1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement showed no clear difference in complications (biological and biomechanical) compared with 2-stage (submerged) implant placement; GRADE not reported.
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 0.13 [0.01, 2.25]1 study · 30 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: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement
2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
2009-01Not 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.