Primary study · included by 1 review
Chrcanovic 2016
ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean distance from root apex of the first molar (1M) to the inferior alveolar canal (mm) Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Mean distance (mm) 6.329 [4.477, 8.182] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of undercut (U) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular second molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 73 [62.5, 81.4] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of parallel (P) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first and second molars combined (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 25.2 [17.5, 34.9] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of convergent (C) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 29.5 [20.1, 41.1] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of undercut (U) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first and second molars combined (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 49.2 [40.3, 58.2] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Mean distance from root apex of the second premolar (2PM) to the inferior alveolar canal (mm) Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular second premolar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Mean distance (mm) 5.146 [3.832, 6.460] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Mean distance from root apex of the second molar (2M) to the inferior alveolar canal (mm) Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular second molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Mean distance (mm) 4.653 [4.057, 5.249] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of undercut (U) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 41.1 [27.6, 56] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of parallel (P) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular second molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 15.4 [8.6, 26.1] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of convergent (C) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first and second molars combined (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 25 [17.9, 33.7] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of parallel (P) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular first molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 35 [20.8, 52.6] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Prevalence of convergent (C) ridge morphology Immediate implant placement planning at the mandibular second molar (CBCT anatomical assessment) vs None (no comparator) | Pooled prevalence (%) 9 [4, 18.9] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.