Summary of findings 5. Complete dentures: different techniques, different materials.
| Single‐stage with alginate versus two step‐two stage with ZoE for making dentures for completely edentulous people | ||||||
|
Population: completely edentulous people Setting: dental school hospital Intervention: single‐stage with alginate Comparison: two step‐two stage with ZoE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with ZoE | Risk with alginate | |||||
| Participant‐reported oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐EDENT) Follow‐up: 6 months | Mean OHIP‐EDENT score 5.5 |
MD 0.5 higher (2.67 lower to 3.67 higher) | ‐ | 39 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 2 | |
| Participant‐reported quality of the denture: general satisfaction Follow‐up: 6 months | 25 per 1000 | 79 per 1000 (4 to 1000) | RR 3.15 (0.14 to 72.88) | 39 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 2 | |
| 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. ZoE: zinc‐oxide eugenol | ||||||
| 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 indirectness due to the single study with only 39 participants included in this trial. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise.
2 Downgraded twice for serious imprecision, small sample size and wide 95% CI.