Summary of findings for the main comparison. Complete dentures: same materials, different final‐impression techniques.
| BPS versus CCD techniques for making dentures for completely edentulous people | ||||||
|
Population: completely edentulous people Setting: university department of prosthodontics Intervention: biofunctional prosthetic system (Accu‐dent System) Comparison: traditional technique | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number pf participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with placebo | Risk with selective pressure | |||||
| Participant‐reported oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐EDENT) Follow‐up: 3 months |
10 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | OHIP‐EDENT median scores: BPS 34.5; CCD 35.8. No clear difference between groups2 | |||
| Participant‐reported quality of the denture ‐ denture satisfaction Follow‐up: 3 months |
10 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | VAS median scores: BPS 86.5; CCD 88. No clear difference between groups2 | |||
| Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture Follow‐up: 3 months |
10 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | Median number of denture adjustments: BPS 3.5; CCD 4.5. BPS required fewer adjustments2 | |||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio; BPS: closed mouth two stage‐two step with addition silicone elastomer (Biofunctional Prosthetic System); CCD: open mouth two stage‐two step conventional technique using elastomer; VAS: visual analogue scale | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 We downgraded the quality of the evidence by one level for high risk of bias and two levels for sparse data
2 Data were taken directly from the published study report