Primary study · included by 1 review
Interproximal contact loss in a retrospective cross-sectional study of 4325 implants: Distribution and incidence and the effect on bone loss and peri-implant soft tissue.
French 2019 · French David, Naito Mitchel, Linke Bernie · The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2019
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 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.