Primary study · included by 1 review
Analysis of proximal contact loss between implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and adjacent teeth in relation to influential factors and effects. A cross‐sectional study
Byun 2015 · Byun Soo‐Jung, Heo Seok‐Mo, Ahn Seung‐Geun, et al. · Clinical Oral Implants Research · 2014
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Changes in marginal bone levels (mm) Open proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration vs Closed proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration | MD 0.03 [-0.08, 0.14] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Changes in marginal bone levels (mm) Open proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration vs Closed proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration | MD 0.16 [-0.08, 0.39] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Changes in marginal bone levels (mm) Open proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration vs Closed proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration · Follow-up 24 to 84 months | MD 0.07 [-0.09, 0.24] | 4 studies · 4697 participants | Very low |
Changes in probing pocket depths (mm) Open proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration vs Closed proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration · Follow-up 24 to 60 months | MD 0.11 [-0.29, 0.51] | 3 studies · 372 participants | Very low |
Changes in marginal bone levels (mm) Open proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration vs Closed proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration | MD 0.04 [-0.15, 0.24] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Changes in marginal bone levels (mm) Open proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration vs Closed proximal contact adjacent to implant restoration | MD 0.15 [-0.18, 0.48] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.