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 · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in patient satisfaction compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery
1 finding from 1 review
Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery
1 finding from 1 review
Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery
1 finding from 1 review
Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery
1 finding from 1 review
Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery
1 finding from 1 review
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
Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Satisfaction of patients, care givers and healthcare professionals · patients admitted to hospital with a medical condition (27 trials), with a mix of medical and surgical conditions (4 trials), following a…
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes satisfaction of patients, care givers and healthcare professionals (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Complications (e.g. discomfort, pain and swelling) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…
1 finding from 1 review
Changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) · 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 plus barrier membrane changes changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with alloplast without membrane (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Aesthetic outcomes of future prosthodontic rehabilitation · 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
Outcome not reported
0 studies
No studies found