Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

134 questions · 141 findings · 15 reviews · Implants and prosthodontics

No studies found 31 · 22%GRADE not reported 56 · 39.7%Very low 47 · 33.3%Low 6 · 4.3%Moderate 1 · 0.7%High 0 · 0%

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 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 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

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Patient preference · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Osteotomes with mallet (Summers' technique) vs Rotary instruments (Cosci technique)

Patient preference · Patients undergoing crestal maxillary sinus lift
1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Patient perceived satisfaction (denture preference) · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperbaric oxygen vs No HBO therapy

Preimplantation complications · Patients who have had radiotherapy and who have missing teeth that require replacement with osseointegrated dental implants

Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy led to lower preimplantation complications compared with no HBO therapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement vs No augmentation

Aesthetic preference evaluated by the patient (split-mouth design studies) · Partially edentulous patients receiving posterior mandibular implants

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement led to lower patient preference (aesthetics evaluated by patients) compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) vs Inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block)

Patient preference · Patients with atrophic posterior mandibles (5 to 7 mm above the mandibular canal) needing implants

Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) led to lower patient preference compared with inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement

Patient preference including aesthetics (split-mouth studies only) · People with dental implants

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)

Patient perceived satisfaction (denture preference) · Edentulous adult patients requiring complete dentures

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic;… led to higher patient perceived satisfaction (denture preference) compared with zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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 single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown failure compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings 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 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 single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown complications compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review