What do systematic reviews say?

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies…
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported data for this outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported data for this outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Altered-cast impression technique (ACIP), polyether vs One-piece cast technique (OPC), polyether

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Not measured
  0 studies
  No studies found

Ball (stud) attachment system vs Bar attachment system

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Only Walton 2002 assessed patient satisfaction but reported narrative results and failed to provide any usable numbers. Quality of life as assessed by a validated measure was not recorded in any of the trials.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ball (stud) attachment system vs Telescopic attachment system

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Cepa 2017 assessed patient satisfaction but did not use validated measures and we could not use the data. Quality of life as assessed by a validated measure was not recorded.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ball (stud) attachment system vs Magnetic attachment system

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Two trials (Cune 2010; Naert 1999) reported patient satisfaction. However, we could not use any data from these studies. Quality of life as assessed by a validated measure was not recorded in any of the trials.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Wax (fluid wax), two stage-two step selective pressure final impression vs Polysulfide rubber (elastomer)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Not measured
  0 studies
  No studies found

Biofunctional Prosthetic System (BPS): closed-mouth two stage-two step final impression with addition silicone elastomer vs Conventional complete denture technique (CCD): open-mouth two stage-two step conventional technique using elastomer

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months
  OHIP-EDENT median scores: BPS 34.5; CCD 35.8. No clear difference between groups
  1 study · 10 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) compared with two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  MD 0.5 [-2.67, 3.67]
  1 study · 39 participants
  Very low

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 month
  MD 0.05 [-2.37, 2.47]
  2 studies · 98 participants
  Very low

Alginate (two stage-two step final/wash impression) vs Silicone elastomer (two stage-two step)

Alginate (two stage-two step final/wash impression) may leads to higher participant-reported oral health-related quality of life… compared with silicone elastomer (two stage-two step) (low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 weeks
  MD 7.20 [2.71, 11.69]
  1 study · 144 participants
  Low