Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

28 questions · 28 findings · 9 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 3.6%GRADE not reported 22 · 78.6%Very low 3 · 10.7%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 7.1%High 0 · 0%

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

Prosthesis failure · Patients with atrophic posterior mandibles (5 to 7 mm above the mandibular canal) needing implants

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants

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.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants

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.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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)

Implant/prosthesis failure and complications · Patients with resorbed maxillae (incl. atrophic sinuses) needing implants

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Implant/prosthesis failure and complications · Patients with resorbed maxillae (incl. atrophic sinuses) needing implants

1 finding from 1 review

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

Cemented implant crown vs Screw-retained implant crown

Mechanical complications / prosthesis failure (4 years) · Patients with single-tooth implants receiving implant crowns; split-mouth

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
4 years
No reports of any mechanical complications or failures with either type of prosthesis (narrative)
1 study · 12 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

Prosthesis failure · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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