evidencegaps
Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

366 questions · 379 findings · 22 reviews · Implants and prosthodontics · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 51 · 13.5%GRADE not reported 248 · 65.4%Very low 65 · 17.2%Low 9 · 2.4%Moderate 6 · 1.6%High 0 · 0%

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) vs Sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier maintaining space / no bone)

Bone gain · Patients with an atrophic maxillary sinus requiring augmentation (1 to 5 mm residual bone height)

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in bone gain compared with sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier…; GRADE not reported.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces vs Roughened implant surfaces

Early implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

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

1 finding from 1 review

Astra TiO2-blasted titanium screws vs Branemark turned titanium screws

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

Astra TiO2-blasted titanium screws showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with branemark turned titanium screws; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone graft with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) vs Bone graft without PRP

Complications · Patients with insufficient bone below the maxillary sinus requiring dental implants
1 finding from 1 review

One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm implants vs Lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and implants at least 10 mm long

Complications · Patients with 3 to 6 mm of residual bone height at the sinus floor

One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm… showed no clear difference in complications compared with lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Complications (at treated sites) · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants may leads to higher complications (at treated sites) compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelReplace implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive external connection implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with nobelReplace implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Branemark Mark IV TiUnite titanium screws vs Southern regular titanium screws

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

Branemark Mark IV TiUnite titanium screws showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with southern regular titanium screws; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm implants vs Lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and implants at least 10 mm long

Implant failure · Patients with 3 to 6 mm of residual bone height at the sinus floor

One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm… showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Implant failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm implants vs Lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and implants at least 10 mm long

Partial graft loss · Patients with 3 to 6 mm of residual bone height at the sinus floor

One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm… showed no clear difference in partial graft loss compared with lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

One-stage lateral sinus lift with monocortical autogenous bone blocks (iliac crest) vs Two-stage lateral sinus lift with autogenous particulate bone (iliac crest)

Implant failure · Patients with 2 to 7 mm of residual alveolar bone height in the edentulous maxillary sinus floor

One-stage lateral sinus lift with monocortical autogenous bone… showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with two-stage lateral sinus lift with autogenous particulate bone (iliac…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Branemark Mark IV turned titanium implants vs Branemark Mark IV TiUnite oxidised implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

Branemark Mark IV turned titanium implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with branemark Mark IV TiUnite oxidised implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ITI SLActive titanium grade 4 implants vs ITI SLActive titanium-13zirconium (Roxolid) implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

ITI SLActive titanium grade 4 implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with ITI SLActive titanium-13zirconium (Roxolid) implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Osteotomes with mallet (Summers' technique) vs Rotary instruments (Cosci technique)

Patient preference · Patients undergoing crestal maxillary sinus lift
1 finding from 1 review