Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure 1 year.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure 1 year.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure 1 year.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure 1 year.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues 1 year.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues 1 year.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Bone level changes 1 year.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Bone level changes 1 year.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Patients' aesthetic perception.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Patients' aesthetic perception.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of perimplant tissues.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of perimplant tissues.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 9 Bone level changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 9 Bone level changes.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Immediate versus Immediate‐delayed implants, Outcome 1 Aesthetics (dentist): position of perimplant tissues.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Immediate versus Immediate‐delayed implants, Outcome 1 Aesthetics (dentist): position of perimplant tissues.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Immediate versus Immediate‐delayed implants, Outcome 2 Bone level changes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Immediate versus Immediate‐delayed implants, Outcome 2 Bone level changes.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Augmentation versus no augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 1 Autogenous bone graft versus no augmentation (binary).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Augmentation versus no augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 1 Autogenous bone graft versus no augmentation (binary).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Augmentation versus no augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 2 Autogenous bone graft versus no augmentation (continuous).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Augmentation versus no augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 2 Autogenous bone graft versus no augmentation (continuous).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 1 Resorbable versus non‐resorbable barrier (binary).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 1 Resorbable versus non‐resorbable barrier (binary).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 2 Resorbable versus non‐resorbable (continuous).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 2 Resorbable versus non‐resorbable (continuous).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 3 Resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (binary).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 3 Resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (binary).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 4 Resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (continuous).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 4 Resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (continuous).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 5 Non‐resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (binary).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 5 Non‐resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (binary).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 6 Non‐resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (continuous).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 6 Non‐resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (continuous).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 7 Bio‐Oss versus Bio‐Oss + resorbable (binary).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 7 Bio‐Oss versus Bio‐Oss + resorbable (binary).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 8 Bio‐Oss versus Bio‐Oss + resorbable (continuous).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets, Outcome 8 Bio‐Oss versus Bio‐Oss + resorbable (continuous).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Comparison 1. Immediate versus delayed implants

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prosthesis failure 1 year Show forest plot

2

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.33 [0.76, 24.56]

2 Implant failure 1 year Show forest plot

2

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.33 [0.76, 24.56]

3 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues 1 year Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Bone level changes 1 year Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Immediate versus delayed implants
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prosthesis failure Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 5 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Implant failure Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 5 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Complications Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 5 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 2 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Patients' aesthetic perception Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 2 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 5 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 2 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 5 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 2 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 5 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of perimplant tissues Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 2 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 5 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Bone level changes Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 2 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 5 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Immediate versus Immediate‐delayed implants

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Aesthetics (dentist): position of perimplant tissues Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 2 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Bone level changes Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 2 years

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Immediate versus Immediate‐delayed implants
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. Augmentation versus no augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Autogenous bone graft versus no augmentation (binary) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Prosthetic failure (2 years)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Implant failure (2 years)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Complication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Autogenous bone graft versus no augmentation (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Bone gain (vertical ‐ VDH)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Bone gain (horizontal ‐ HDD)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Augmentation versus no augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 5. Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Resorbable versus non‐resorbable barrier (binary) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Complication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Resorbable versus non‐resorbable (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Bone gain (vertical ‐ VDH)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Bone gain (horizontal ‐ HDD)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (binary) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Complication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Bone gain (vertical ‐ VDH)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Bone gain (horizontal ‐ HDD)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Non‐resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (binary) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Complication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Non‐resorbable versus resorbable + autogenous bone (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Bone gain (vertical ‐ VDH)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Bone gain (horizontal ‐ HDD)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Bio‐Oss versus Bio‐Oss + resorbable (binary) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Augmentation failure

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Complication at augmented site

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 Poor aesthetics measured by dentist (after restoration)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.5 Poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Bio‐Oss versus Bio‐Oss + resorbable (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Bone gain (vertical ‐ VDH)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Bone gain (horizontal ‐ HDD)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Augmentation versus augmentation: immediate implants in extraction sockets
Ir a la tabla de la revisión