for the main comparison.
| Conventional compared with immediate loading of dental implants | ||||||
|
Patient or population: patients requiring dental implants Settings: dental practice Intervention: immediate loading Comparison: conventional loading | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Conventional | Immediate | |||||
|
Prosthesis failure at 1 year |
Low risk population | RR 1.90 (0.67 to 5.34) | 381 (8) | +OOO2, 3 very low | ||
| 10 per 10001 | 19 per 1000 (7 to 53) | |||||
| High risk population | ||||||
| 100 per 1000 | 190 per 1000 (70 to 534) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
1. The prosthetic failure rate in the conventional loading group is 1.2%
2. Eight studies: five at high and three at unclear risk of bias
3. There is some evidence of publication bias
CI = confidence interval RR = risk ratio GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: High quality (++++): Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderatn quality (+++O): Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality (++OO): Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality (+OOO): We are very uncertain about the estimate.