What do systematic reviews say?

Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) vs Inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block)

Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 1 year post-loading
  OR 1.0 [0.01, 82.26]
  1 study · 10 participants
  GRADE not reported

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with 2-stage (submerged) implant placement (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 to 12 months after loading
  RR 1.39 [0.59, 3.27]
  4 studies · 230 participants
  Moderate

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 2 years post-loading
  OR 5.74 [0.92, 35.82]
  2 studies · 98 participants
  GRADE not reported

ARP with alloplast vs Extraction alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

ARP with xenograft (bone graft) vs Extraction alone

It is very uncertain whether ARP with xenograft (bone graft) changes implant failure rate compared with extraction alone (very low certainty).

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 to 36 months
  RR 1.0 [0.07, 14.9]
  2 studies · 70 participants
  Very low

ARP with allograft plus synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15 vs ARP with allograft without P-15

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

ARP with allograft (bone graft) vs ARP with xenograft

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

ARP with alloplast plus barrier membrane vs ARP with alloplast without membrane

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  9 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes implant failure rate compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 to 8 months
  Not estimable; 1 trial (Patel 2013) reported that none of the implants failed after 12 months of loading
  1 study · 25 participants
  Very low

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces vs Roughened implant surfaces

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces showed no clear difference in early implant failure compared with roughened implant surfaces (low certainty).

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  before prosthetic loading · turned vs roughened surfaces
  RR 2.79 [0.87, 8.90]
  7 studies · 404 participants
  Low

Autogenous bone block from the chin + resorbable barrier vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Autogenous bone block from the chin + resorbable barrier showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 1 year post-loading
  OR 0.19 [0.01, 4.07]
  1 study · 62 participants
  GRADE not reported

Autogenous bone block from the chin vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Autogenous bone block from the chin showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 1 year post-loading
  OR 0.19 [0.01, 4.07]
  1 study · 62 participants
  GRADE not reported

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  There were no prosthesis or implant failures in either group (Bio-Oss vs Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; Chen 2007); not estimable.
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Two-stage sinus lift + buccal onlay iliac grafts WITH platelet-rich plasma (PRP) vs Same grafts WITHOUT PRP (split-mouth)

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years post-loading
  No statistically significant difference for any outcome; data not shown (Raghoebar 2005)
  1 study · 5 participants
  GRADE not reported

Buccal onlay iliac grafts fixed with titanium screws vs Buccal onlay iliac grafts fixed with resorbable screws (split-mouth)

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years post-loading
  No statistically significant difference for any outcome; data not shown (Raghoebar 2006)
  1 study · 8 participants
  GRADE not reported

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Summary of findings 'Zygomatic implants versus conventional implants'; Prosthesis failure: Assumed risk (conventional) Low risk population 10 per 1000, High risk population 100 per 1000; Corresponding risk (zygomatic)…
  0 studies
  No studies found