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%

Closest answers

The findings closest to your search, judged one by one by TypeSafe's Jev model.

Direct match · question page
- Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site vs No augmentation · Major complications at the implant/donor site
  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
  up to 2 years
  Two complications occurred in the group treated with autogenous bone (one abscess that determined the early failure of the implant and one wound dehiscence); none in the control group.
  1 study · 26 participants
  GRADE not reported
Direct match · question page
- Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) · Major complications at the implant/donor site
  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
  up to 2 years
  Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
  1 study · 23 participants
  GRADE not reported
Direct match · question page
- Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + autogenous bone · Major complications at the implant/donor site
  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
  up to 2 years
  Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported
Direct match · question page
- Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + autogenous bone · Major complications at the implant/donor site
  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
  up to 2 years
  Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
  1 study · 24 participants
  GRADE not reported

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; 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 2 years
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; 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 2 years
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration)

Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); 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 2 years
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported

Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site vs No augmentation

Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)

Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with no augmentation; 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 2 years
Two complications occurred in the group treated with autogenous bone (one abscess that determined the early failure of the implant and one wound dehiscence); none in the control group.
1 study · 26 participants
GRADE not reported