Patient satisfaction / quality of life (validated measure) · Edentulous adults receiving mandibular implant overdentures (opposing conventional complete maxillary dentures)
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction / quality of life (validated measure) · Edentulous adults receiving mandibular implant overdentures (opposing conventional complete maxillary dentures)
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction / quality of life (validated measure) · Edentulous adults receiving mandibular implant overdentures (opposing conventional complete maxillary dentures)
1 finding from 1 review
Overall denture satisfaction (0-10 scale) · Patients who have had radiotherapy and who have missing teeth that require replacement with osseointegrated dental implants
Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy showed no clear difference in patient satisfaction (overall denture satisfaction) compared with no HBO therapy; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Analysis 1.2 (Overall denture satisfaction): Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI), totals not selected (value not displayed).
1 study · 17 participants
GRADE not reported
Patient satisfaction (liked toothbrush) · Adults with dental implants and peri-implant mucositis at baseline
Sonic toothbrushing led to higher patient satisfaction (liked toothbrush) compared with manual toothbrushing; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction (desire for future use) · Adults with dental implants and healthy peri-implant soft tissues at baseline
Amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF2) mouthwash led to higher patient satisfaction (desire for future use) compared with chlorhexidine mouthwash; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overall denture satisfaction (0-10 scale) · Edentulous patients requiring improved denture retention
Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) led to lower overall denture satisfaction (0-10 scale) compared with implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO); GRADE not reported.
3 findings 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
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
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 complication at augmented site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower major complications at the augmented site compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Two complications occurred in the Bio-Oss plus barrier group (one abscess during healing; one chronic perimplant mucositis); none in the Bio-Oss group. No statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Aesthetics · 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 (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After placement of the final restorations the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/10 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 4/10 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
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
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
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
Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review