Güncü 2008.
| Methods | Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth group trial Location: Ankara Turkey Number of centres: one (Faculty of Dentistry, Hecettepe University, Ankara, Turkey) Recruitment period: November 2004 to August 2005 Funding source: not reported |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: patients missing both mandibular first molars allowing the placement of 11.5 mm long and 4 mm large single implants with an implant to crown length ratio 1/1 Exclusion criteria: smoking, osteoporosis, severe parafunctional habits, post‐extractive implants, untreated periodontal disease, poor oral hygiene, drug or alcohol abuse, need of augmentation procedures at the implanted sites, and any systemic diseases likely to compromise implant surgery Age at baseline: 41.09 years (± 8.46) range 30‐55 Gender: M4/F8 Number randomised: 12 Number evaluated: 12 |
|
| Interventions |
Comparison: Immediate versus conventional loading Gp A (n = 12) Immediate loading: Single implants restored the same day with acrylic crown and after 1 week with occluding cemented metal‐ceramic crowns Gp B (n = 12) Conventional loading: Single implants restored after 3 months with occluding cemented metal‐ceramic crowns Brånemark® (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) non‐submerged TiUnite Mark III type titanium screws were used Duration of follow‐up: 1 year |
|
| Outcomes | Prosthesis/implant failures, Osstell, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, plaque index, gingival index, probing depths, bleeding time index 1‐year data used |
|
| Notes | Sample size calculation: not reported | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Reported in the article: "Randomization for IL and CL selection was performed by coin toss" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Nothing reported in the article Author replied that: "Coin toss was performed before implant placement during surgery for each patient. Group allocation was concealed to the investigators" Reviewers comment: if the coin was tossed before implant placement obviously allocation could not be concealed |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Nothing reported in the article Author replied that "the outcome assessor was blinded" |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | All data presented after clarification by the author |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes appear to be presented |
| Other bias | Low risk | None detected |