Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

44 questions · 44 findings · 5 reviews · Oral and maxillofacial surgery

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 2.3%GRADE not reported 42 · 95.5%Very low 1 · 2.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration)

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
up to 2 years
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

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
up to 3 years
After delivery of the prostheses one patient in each group was dissatisfied with aesthetics (1/10 vs 1/10); no statistically significant difference (Chen 2007).
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
up to 3 years
There were no prosthesis or implant failures in either group (Bio-Oss vs Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; Chen 2007); not estimable.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 years
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