Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

175 questions · 179 findings · 31 reviews

No studies found 46 · 25.7%GRADE not reported 60 · 33.5%Very low 41 · 22.9%Low 19 · 10.6%Moderate 11 · 6.1%High 2 · 1.1%

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast plus barrier membrane vs ARP with alloplast without membrane

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with allograft plus synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15 vs ARP with allograft without P-15

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with allograft (bone graft) vs ARP with xenograft

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with allograft changes need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast plus barrier membrane vs ARP with alloplast without membrane

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes implant failure rate compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Success rate of replantation1 (analysed by participant) · patients undergoing digital replantation after traumatic amputation

It is very uncertain whether low molecular weight heparin changes success rate of replantation1 (analysed by participant, compared with unfractionated heparin (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Success rate of replantation1 (analysed by digit, · patients undergoing digital replantation after traumatic amputation

Low molecular weight heparin showed no clear difference in success rate of replantation1 (analysed by digit, compared with unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Complication and adverse reactions ‐ wound bleeding (analysed by participant, · patients undergoing digital replantation after traumatic amputation

Low molecular weight heparin showed no clear difference in complication and adverse reactions ‐ wound bleeding (analysed by… compared with unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Transplantation of other teeth after extraction of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Implant-supported crowns after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: plantar‐incision neurectomy (PN) vs dorsal‐incision neurectomy (DN)

Satisfaction: 4‐item Likert scale (dichotomised into satisfied and dissatisfied) · Morton's neuroma

Summary of findings: plantar‐incision neurectomy (PN) showed no clear difference in satisfaction: 4‐item Likert scale (dichotomised into satisfied and… compared with dorsal‐incision neurectomy (DN) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus)

Augmentation procedure (partial) failure · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in augmentation procedure (partial) failure compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus)

Marginal bone level change · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in 1-year post-loading bone level changes compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest)

Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis led to higher vertical bone gain compared with autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest)

Complications · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in complications compared with autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus)

Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review