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
Outcome not reported
0 studies
No studies found
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
Outcome not reported
0 studies
No studies found
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
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
Outcome not reported
0 studies
No studies found
Marginal bone level change · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) showed no clear difference in marginal bone level change (MBLC) compared with metal implant abutments (titanium); GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Periodontal or peri-implant status: gingival recession (REC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) showed no clear difference in gingival/mucosal recession (REC) compared with metal implant abutments (titanium); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Abutment failure · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) changes abutment failure compared with metal implant abutments (titanium) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Implant probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) showed no clear difference in implant probing pocket depth (PPD) compared with metal implant abutments (titanium); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Complications · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
1 finding from 1 review
Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
1 finding from 1 review
Primary outcome aesthetic evaluation data were reported as the frequency of distribution of the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI); no comparative summary estimate was presented.
2 studies · 47 participants
Very low
Economic factors · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of visits · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Duration of space closure · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Acceptability · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Visual marginal discrepancy (3 years) · Patients receiving single crowns and FDPs; split-mouth
Low-gold (Midas) or silver-palladium (Albacast) alloy FDP showed no clear difference in visual marginal discrepancy (3 years) compared with high-gold content control alloy (JS C) FDP; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Mechanical complications / prosthesis failure (4 years) · Patients with single-tooth implants receiving implant crowns; split-mouth
1 finding from 1 review