Question · asked by 1 review
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier: Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration)
- Population
- Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
- Intervention
- Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone)
- Comparison
- Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier
- Outcome
- Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites) · up to 3 years Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate,… (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes | After delivery of the prostheses one patient in each group was dissatisfied with aesthetics (1/10 vs 1/10); no statistically significant difference (Chen 2007). | 1 study · 20 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: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed and delayed implants) 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2010-06 | 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.