Caries incidence rate per person-year at risk (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition
Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias meta-regression beta was -0.02 per additional follow-up year.
5 findings from 1 review
Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomesPer additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.02 [-0.05, 0.01]
15 studies · 10768 participants
GRADE not reported
Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomesPer additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.00 [-0.00, 0.01]
15 studies · 10768 participants
GRADE not reported
Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomesPer additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.00 [-0.00, 0.01]
15 studies · 10768 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomesPer additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.00 [-0.02, 0.02]
15 studies · 10768 participants
GRADE not reported
Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomesPer additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01]
15 studies · 10768 participants
GRADE not reported
Patient satisfaction · 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
Treatment costs · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Treatment costs: no trials reported this outcome (extrapolated by the review authors). Additional costs were associated with the long-implant + augmentation group (extra surgery, biomaterial, barrier, hospitalisation…
0 studies
No studies found
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
Complications (at treated sites) · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants may leads to higher complications (at treated sites) compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Augmentation procedure failure · 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
Implant failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Prosthesis failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Incidence-free survival (caries, endodontic treatment, tooth loss) · Patients with a shortened dental arch (missing posterior teeth)
Fixed dental prosthesis (cantilever FDP) showed no clear difference in incidence-free survival (caries, endodontic treatment, tooth loss) compared with removable dental prosthesis (RDP); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
HR 0.73 [0.06, 8.41]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Overall success rate · Patients receiving implant-supported single crowns / short-span FDPs
1 finding from 1 review
Andersson 2003: 94% (16/17) ceramic vs 100% (12/12) titanium; Andersson 2001: 93% (28/30) ceramic vs 100% (35/35) titanium; no statistical analysis provided; no measurable / non-significant differences in alveolar bone…
2 studies · 107 participants
GRADE not reported
5-year prosthesis survival · Patients with a shortened dental arch (missing posterior teeth)
Fixed dental prosthesis (cantilever FDP) showed no clear difference in prosthesis survival compared with removable dental prosthesis (RDP); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Caries incidence (2 years) · Patients with a shortened dental arch (missing posterior teeth)
Fixed dental prosthesis (cantilever FDP) led to lower caries incidence (2 years) compared with removable dental prosthesis (RDP); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction with prosthesis · Patients with a shortened dental arch (missing posterior teeth)
Fixed dental prosthesis (cantilever FDP) showed no clear difference in patient satisfaction with prosthesis compared with removable dental prosthesis (RDP); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Severe pain for > 1 week · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants
Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to higher severe pain for > 1 week compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Experienced the operation negatively · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants
Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in experienced the operation negatively compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
No improvement of facial appearance (3 weeks) · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants
Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to lower no improvement of facial appearance (3 weeks) compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Prosthetic failure (2 years) · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants
Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in prosthetic failure compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Major complications · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants
Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to higher major complications compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Implant failure · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants
Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration longevity · Patients receiving indirect laminate veneer restorations on permanent anterior teeth
1 finding from 1 review