Zygomatic implants with bone grafts (as a partial alternative to bone augmentation; some augmentation still required in the frontal maxilla) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae
Outcome not reported · Patients with a severely atrophic maxilla for whom some bone augmentation is still required in the frontal portion of the maxilla;…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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 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 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
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
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 non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); 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 · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Implant failure · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
Bone substitute (anorganic bovine bone / Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with A different bone substitute; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Augmentation procedure failure · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
1 finding from 1 review
Prosthesis failure · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
1 finding from 1 review
Lindgren 2012 (split-mouth, 11 patients): prosthesis failures 0/11 versus 0/11; none.
1 study · 11 participants
GRADE not reported
Complication at augmented site · Patients undergoing two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation
Bone substitute (anorganic bovine bone / Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in complications at augmented site compared with A different bone substitute; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Complications · Patients with an atrophic posterior maxilla requiring maxillary sinus augmentation
Autogenous bone graft (two-stage lateral sinus lift) showed no clear difference in complications compared with bone substitute (anorganic bovine bone / Bio-Oss); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Implant failure · Patients with an atrophic posterior maxilla requiring maxillary sinus augmentation
Autogenous bone graft (two-stage lateral sinus lift) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with bone substitute (anorganic bovine bone / Bio-Oss); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Bone gain · Patients undergoing one-stage crestal maxillary sinus lift without bone grafts (baseline residual bone height about 6.5 mm)
Hand mallet (osteotomes) showed no clear difference in bone gain compared with electric mallet; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Radiographic marginal bone level · People with at least one dental implant affected by perimplantitis
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal bone level change · People with at least one dental implant affected by perimplantitis
Er:YAG laser showed no clear difference in radiographic marginal bone level change compared with air-abrasive device (Perio-Flow); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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/implant failure (1 year) · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants
Autogenous bone block from the chin showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Horizontal bone augmentation (any technique) vs No augmentation
Outcome not reported · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants
Autogenous bone block from the chin + resorbable barrier showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review