Oocyte pick‐up cancellation sensitivity analysis ‐ Normoresponders (micronised progesterone 200 mg versus GnRH antagonists) ‐ Own oocytes ‐ Early phase stimulation protocol ‐ Fresh embryo transfer · assisted reproduction technology cycles
Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens showed no clear difference in oocyte pick‐up cancellation sensitivity analysis ‐ Normoresponders… compared with gnRH antagonists; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Oocyte pick‐up cancellation · assisted reproduction technology cycles
Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens showed no clear difference in oocyte pick‐up cancellation ‐ Normoresponders (MPA 10 mg versus GnRH… compared with gnRH antagonists; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Premature LH surge ‐ Donor oocytes ‐ Normoresponders ‐ Early phase stimulation protocol ‐ Fresh embryo transfer · assisted reproduction technology cycles
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
1 study · 1 participants
GRADE not reported
Live birth rate per fresh transfer · Patients with subfertility
Blastocyst‐stage may leads to higher live birth rate per fresh transfer compared with cleavage‐stage embryo transfer (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Major complications at the implant site · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets
Immediate-delayed implants (placed within 8 weeks after tooth… led to higher major complications at the implant site compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction); GRADE not reported.
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
Aesthetics assessed by dentist: interproximal papilla dimension · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets
Immediate-delayed implants (placed within 8 weeks after tooth… led to lower aesthetics assessed by dentist: interproximal papilla dimension compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Implant failure · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets
Immediate-delayed implants (placed within 8 weeks after tooth… led to lower implant failure compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Three early implant failures (two immediate-delayed, one delayed); no statistically significant difference up to 5 years (Schropp 2003).
1 study · 46 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 assessed by dentist: position of the perimplant tissues · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets
Immediate-delayed implants (placed within 8 weeks after tooth… led to higher aesthetics assessed by dentist: position of the perimplant tissues compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review