Position of the incisors (upper incisor inclination) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
The author reported that data (1.NA, 1-NA, 1-PP, 1.NB, 1-NB, 1-GoMe) showed a statistically significant difference. There was palatal inclination of the upper incisors in the intervention group that contributed to…
1 study
GRADE not reported
Side effects / tolerability · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-5.5 years) with early childhood caries in anterior primary teeth (>=2 carious surfaces), no pulp therapy
Zirconia crowns failed less than composite strip crowns (3.3% vs 15% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Bleeding, as measured by: amount of blood loss; complete cessation of bleeding as assessed clinically by the investigator; time required for the control of bleeding · People of any age and either gender with post-extraction bleeding, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
R-appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort associated with the procedure · People of any age and either gender with post-extraction bleeding, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · People of any age and either gender with post-extraction bleeding, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Costs: direct cost of treatment · People of any age and either gender with post-extraction bleeding, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported
Prosthesis failure · 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 prosthesis failure compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
In total two implants were lost in the autogenous bone group, whereas no complications or failures occurred in the non-augmented control group; underpowered, no statistically significant difference (Chen 2005b).
1 study · 26 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences in bone gain were found between the two procedures for vertical height of the defect (VDH) (Chen 2007).
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
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
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
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
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
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