Comparison 5. Tooth‐tissue‐supported conditions: same material and different dual‐impression techniques.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Intagilo adjustment	1	72	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.43 [0.61, 3.34]
2 Base adaptation	1	72	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.11 [‐0.18, ‐0.04]
3 Mobility	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
3.1 Right abutment	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.90 [0.87, 9.61]
3.2 Left abutment	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.40, 3.37]
4 Gingival index	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
4.1 Right abutment	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.05 [0.56, 1.98]
4.2 Left abutment	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.46, 2.64]