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
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 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 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
Implant failure · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site led to lower implant failure compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Two complications occurred in the group treated with autogenous bone (one abscess that determined the early failure of the implant and one wound dehiscence); none in the control group.
1 study · 26 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Both treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the two procedures for vertical height of the defect (VDH) (Chen 2005b).
1 study · 26 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
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with no augmentation; 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
Presence of dry socket · People undergoing tooth extraction (21 of 23 trials: healthy patients undergoing impacted third molar extraction; 1 routine intra-alveolar…
Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (any regimen; topical therapy… may leads to lower dry socket compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Infectious complications · People undergoing tooth extraction (21 of 23 trials: healthy patients undergoing impacted third molar extraction; 1 routine intra-alveolar…
Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (any regimen; topical therapy… may leads to lower postsurgical infectious complications compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Swelling (7th day) · People undergoing tooth extraction (21 of 23 trials: healthy patients undergoing impacted third molar extraction; 1 routine intra-alveolar…
It is very uncertain whether systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (any regimen; topical therapy… changes swelling (7th day) compared with placebo (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing tooth extraction (21 of 23 trials: healthy patients undergoing impacted third molar extraction; 1 routine intra-alveolar…
It is very uncertain whether systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (any regimen; topical therapy… changes pain (continuous, VAS 0-10 cm, 7th day) compared with placebo (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects · People undergoing tooth extraction (21 of 23 trials: healthy patients undergoing impacted third molar extraction; 1 routine intra-alveolar…
It is very uncertain whether systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (any regimen; topical therapy… changes adverse effects compared with placebo (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review