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
Alveolar bone level · Patients with single-tooth implants receiving implant crowns; split-mouth
1 finding from 1 review
Abutment/crown fracture and marginal bone level (3 years) · Patients with single-tooth implant crowns; split-mouth, 3-year
1 finding from 1 review
No fractures of any abutments or crowns; non-significant differences in mean marginal bone levels, which ranged from 1.6 to 2.1 mm (narrative)
1 study · 22 participants
GRADE not reported
Success / prosthetic complications (4 years) · Patients with single-tooth implant crowns; split-mouth, 4-year
1 finding from 1 review
100% success, no prosthetic complications, and a similar loss of marginal bone (0.4 mm) in both groups (narrative)
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
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
Marginal bone level change · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets
Immediate implants (placed in a fresh extraction socket just after… showed no clear difference in perimplant marginal bone level changes compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction, in…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Prosthesis failure · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets
Immediate implants (placed in a fresh extraction socket just after… showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction, in…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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