Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences in bone gain were found between the two procedures for vertical height of the defect (VDH) (Chen 2007).
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Implant failure · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
Bone substitute (anorganic bovine bone / Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with A different bone substitute; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Augmentation procedure failure · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
1 finding from 1 review
Prosthesis failure · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
1 finding from 1 review
Lindgren 2012 (split-mouth, 11 patients): prosthesis failures 0/11 versus 0/11; none.
1 study · 11 participants
GRADE not reported
Complication at augmented site · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
Bone substitute (anorganic bovine bone / Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in complications at augmented site compared with A different bone substitute; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Major complication at augmented site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower major complications at the augmented site compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Two complications occurred in the Bio-Oss plus barrier group (one abscess during healing; one chronic perimplant mucositis); none in the Bio-Oss group. No statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Aesthetics · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by dentist (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After placement of the final restorations the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/10 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 4/10 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After 3 years of loading, the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/7 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 2/5 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported