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
Major complication at augmented site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower major complications at the augmented site compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Two complications occurred in the Bio-Oss plus barrier group (one abscess during healing; one chronic perimplant mucositis); none in the Bio-Oss group. No statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Aesthetics · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by dentist (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After placement of the final restorations the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/10 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 4/10 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
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)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); 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 · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After 3 years of loading, the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/7 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 2/5 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Mortality ( · adult participants (> 16 years of age) undergoing intestinal resection due to Crohn's disease
1 finding from 1 review
Quality of life · adult participants (> 16 years of age) undergoing intestinal resection due to Crohn's disease
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Adverse effects ( · adult participants (> 16 years of age) undergoing intestinal resection due to Crohn's disease
It is very uncertain whether initiation of prophylactic therapy guided by colonoscopy changes adverse effects ( compared with initiation of prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Clinical recurrence (until week 102) · adult participants (> 16 years of age) undergoing intestinal resection due to Crohn's disease
It is very uncertain whether initiation of prophylactic therapy guided by colonoscopy changes clinical recurrence (until week 102) compared with initiation of prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Endoscopic recurrence · adult participants (> 16 years of age) undergoing intestinal resection due to Crohn's disease
It is very uncertain whether initiation of prophylactic therapy guided by colonoscopy changes endoscopic recurrence (at week 102) compared with initiation of prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Surgical recurrence ( · adult participants (> 16 years of age) undergoing intestinal resection due to Crohn's disease
It is very uncertain whether initiation of prophylactic therapy guided by colonoscopy changes surgical recurrence ( compared with initiation of prophylactic therapy immediately after surgery (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.79 [0.38, 1.62]
133 participants
Very low
Change in a global measure of cognition (composite) · people with mild to moderate dementia
2 findings from 1 review