Cochrane · intervention · CD004941
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous people
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
3
Included studies
1
as reported
No studies 3 · 60%Ungraded 2 · 40%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Edentulous adult patients requiring complete dentures | Edentulous adults requiring complete dentures (n=30) |
| Intervention | Interventions comparing different posterior occlusal schemes (e.g. anatomic teeth, non-anatomic teeth, zero-degree teeth) in the construction of complete dentures | Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion) (n=30) |
| Comparison | A different posterior occlusal scheme (head-to-head comparison of schemes) | Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless) (n=30) |
| Outcomes | Patient perceived satisfaction (primary); Patient perceived comfort; Patient perceived masticatory/chewing function; Patient perceived masticatory/chewing efficiency | Patient preference/satisfaction (n=30); Number of adjustments required (n=30) |
| Study designs | Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) | 1 cross-over RCT (Clough 1983); judged high risk of bias (insufficient information on randomisation and allocation concealment) |
| Timing | Studies to be grouped according to treatment type and duration of follow up | 3 weeks per denture set (cross-over) |
Search date: 2004-04. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; OLDMEDLINE; EMBASE; ZETOC; SIGLE; SCI (Science Citation Index)
Questions and results
Current version onlyLingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)
Population: Edentulous adult patients requiring complete dentures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of denture adjustments required 3 weeks per denture set (cross-over) | No statistically significant difference was found between the two occlusal patterns with regard to the number of adjustments required. | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Patient perceived masticatory/chewing efficiency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived comfort | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived satisfaction (denture preference) 3 weeks per denture set (cross-over) | OR 10 [2.04, 48.96] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Patient perceived masticatory/chewing function | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
One posterior occlusal scheme design (anatomic, non-anatomic, or zero-degree teeth) vs A different posterior occlusal scheme design
Population: Edentulous adult patients requiring complete dentures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patient perceived masticatory function | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived chewing efficiency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived comfort | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived masticatory efficiency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived satisfaction (primary) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient perceived chewing function | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |