Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

65 questions · 70 findings · 10 reviews · Implants and prosthodontics

No studies found 6 · 8.6%GRADE not reported 42 · 60%Very low 20 · 28.6%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 2.9%High 0 · 0%

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Plaque · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in plaque index (PI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Gingival index (GI) · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in gingival index (GI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review
  • No comparative data were presented with regard to aesthetics. Aesthetics evaluated by the patient was reported dichotomously (yes/no) in the trial but no between-group estimate was presented.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Periodontal/peri-implant status (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review
  • No comparative data were presented for the pre-specified secondary outcomes. The trial analyzed and reported plaque index, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth but no between-group estimate was presented in the…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

Periodontal/peri-implant status (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No data were presented for any of the pre-specified secondary outcomes. The trial registered pocket depth, bleeding on probing and mobility at follow-up visits but did not report the data.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes cantilevered bridge complications compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (zirconia-toughened alumina; In-Ceram Zirconia) vs Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia; Denzir)

Bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior region
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (zirconia-toughened alumina; In-Ceram Zirconia) vs Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia; Denzir)

Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) needing an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

Bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP)

It is very uncertain whether metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) changes bridge failure compared with metal-ceramic FDPs (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP)

It is very uncertain whether metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient aesthetic satisfaction changes) compared with metal-ceramic FDPs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) changes bridge complications compared with metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Aesthetics evaluated by the patient · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient VAS) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

RDP with I-bar clasps / mesial rests vs RDP with circumferential clasps / distal rests

Change in abutment tooth mobility at 60 months · Partially edentulous patients treated with a removable dental prosthesis (RDP)

RDP with I-bar clasps / mesial rests showed no clear difference in change in abutment tooth mobility at 60 months compared with RDP with circumferential clasps / distal rests; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) vs Connective tissue autograft (palate)

Keratinised mucosa height change · Patients with implant-supported prostheses and <=1 mm keratinised mucosa

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) showed no clear difference in keratinised mucosa height change compared with connective tissue autograft (palate); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) vs Connective tissue autograft (palate)

Recession (aesthetics) · Patients with implant-supported prostheses and <=1 mm keratinised mucosa

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) showed no clear difference in recession (aesthetics) compared with connective tissue autograft (palate); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review