Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · Oral and maxillofacial surgery

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

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

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

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

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
up to 3 years
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

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

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
up to 3 years
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

Immediate implants (placed in a fresh extraction socket just after tooth extraction) vs Delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction)

Aesthetics assessed by dentist: position of the perimplant tissues · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets

Immediate implants (placed in a fresh extraction socket just after… led to lower aesthetics assessed by dentist: position of the perimplant tissues compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction, in…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year
One year after placement, there were no statistically significant differences for the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth (Lindeboom 2006).
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported