Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

83 questions · 90 findings · 7 reviews · Implants and prosthodontics · All outcomes

No studies found 12 · 13.3%GRADE not reported 57 · 63.3%Very low 21 · 23.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown failure compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown complications compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Periodontal/peri-implant status and occlusal wear (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

Marginal bone level (first bone to implant contact, FBIC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with… showed no clear difference in marginal bone level (first bone to implant contact, FBIC) compared with metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns; GRADE not reported.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with… changes aesthetic evaluation (patient satisfaction VAS) compared with metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with… changes aesthetic evaluation (pink and white aesthetic score, PES and WES… compared with metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

Implant crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

Implant crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with… changes implant crown complications compared with metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

Participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction) · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction) compared with two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

Operator-assessed quality of the denture · Completely edentulous people
1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

Participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction) · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction,… compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

Oral health-related quality of life · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) compared with two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

Mandibular denture satisfaction · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes mandibular denture satisfaction compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

Maxillary denture satisfaction · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes maxillary denture satisfaction compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) conventional method

Oral health-related quality of life · Completely edentulous people

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) compared with two stage-two step elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether)… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

Operator-assessed quality of the denture (retention and stability) · Completely edentulous people
1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

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

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

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 demineralised bone matrix, single particle size changes changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review