Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

1,192 questions · 1,243 findings · 151 reviews

No studies found 252 · 20.3%GRADE not reported 180 · 14.5%Very low 291 · 23.4%Low 282 · 22.7%Moderate 174 · 14%High 64 · 5.1%

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

Operator-assessed quality of the denture · Completely edentulous people
1 finding from 1 review

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

Participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction) · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction,… compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Oral health-related quality of life · Completely edentulous people

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Mandibular denture satisfaction · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes mandibular denture satisfaction compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Maxillary denture satisfaction · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes maxillary denture satisfaction compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Oral health-related quality of life · Completely edentulous people

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Operator-assessed quality of the denture (retention and stability) · Completely edentulous people
1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Complications (e.g. discomfort, pain and swelling) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…
1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size changes changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Aesthetic outcomes of future prosthodontic rehabilitation · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size changes changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review