Summary of findings 4. Complete dentures: different techniques, different materials.
| Single stage with alginate versus two stage‐two step elastomer for making dentures for completely edentulous people | ||||||
|
Population: completely edentulous people Setting: university dental clinic Intervention: single stage with alginate Comparison: two stage‐two step with elastomer | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with elastomer | Risk with alginate | |||||
| Participant‐reported oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐EDENT) Follow‐up: 1 month | Mean (OHIP‐EDENT) score was 18 | MD 0.05 higher on average (2.37 lower to 2.47 higher) | ‐ | 98 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 2 3 | |
| Participant‐reported quality of the denture ‐ general satisfaction Follow‐up: 6 months | Mean general satisfaction was 79 | MD 0 on average (8.23 lower to 8.23 higher) | ‐ | 105 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2 3 4 | Satisfaction with maxillary and mandibular dentures were also assessed separately by two studies (155 participants), with no evidence of a difference in satisfaction between groups at six months. |
| Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture | Not measured | |||||
| *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 | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very 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 Downgraded for imprecision due to the wide 95% CI
2 Downgraded for indirectness due to study participants with long period of edentulousness (mean range 24 to 38 years) and poor prognostic factors for success of denture in both groups (ACP classification was at least 69% to 73% in ACP III and ACP IV)
3 Downgraded for risk of bias as allocation concealment was at unclear risk of bias and clinicians were not blinded.
4 Downgraded for imprecision due to the wide 95% CI. Single study with 105 participants