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
Distraction distance (bone gain, mm) · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants
Ultrasound during vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in distraction distance (bone gain, mm) compared with placebo (no ultrasound) during vertical distraction; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Perimplant bone loss · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants
Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in perimplant bone loss (3 years) compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants
Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
One prophylactic antibiotic vs A different prophylactic antibiotic
Outcome not reported · Adults undergoing dental implant placement
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Visual plaque score · Complete denture (CD) wearers
Silicone surfactant cleanser led to lower visual plaque score compared with placebo / sham solution; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
MD -0.88 [-1.00, -0.76]
1 study
GRADE not reported
MD -1.02 [-1.13, -0.91]
1 study
GRADE not reported
One suturing technique/material vs A different suturing technique/material
Outcome not reported · Patients receiving dental implants
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure 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
Prophylactic antibiotic at one dose or duration vs Same antibiotic at a different dose or duration
Outcome not reported · Adults undergoing dental implant placement
1 finding from 1 review
No conclusive information can be derived from the only trial that compared three different durations of antibiotic prophylaxis, since no event (implant or prosthesis failures, infections or adverse events) occurred in…
1 study · 100 participants
GRADE not reported
One soft tissue correction/augmentation technique vs A different soft tissue correction/augmentation technique
Outcome not reported · Patients receiving dental implants
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Implant failure · Patients with insufficient bone below the maxillary sinus requiring dental implants
One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review