Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

  1. Marco Esposito*,
  2. Helen V Worthington

Editorial Group: Cochrane Oral Health Group

Published Online: 5 SEP 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 17 JUN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004151.pub3


How to Cite

Esposito M, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD004151. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004151.pub3.

Author Information

  1. School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Cochrane Oral Health Group, Manchester, UK

*Marco Esposito, Cochrane Oral Health Group, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Coupland 3 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. espositomarco@hotmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 5 SEP 2013

SEARCH

 
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Zygomatic implants versus conventional implants

Patient or population: people requiring dental implants

Settings: dental practice

Intervention: zygomatic implants

Comparison: conventional implants

OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments

Assumed riskCorresponding risk

ConventionalZygomatic

Prosthesis failureLow risk population0

(0)
No trials

10 per 10001

High risk population

100 per 1000

*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% confidence interval (CI)) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality (⊕⊕⊕⊕): further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality (⊕⊕⊕⊝): further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality (⊕⊕⊝⊝): 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 (⊕⊝⊝⊝): we are very uncertain about the estimate.

 1 The assumed risk is based on RCTs included in other Cochrane implant reviews (Esposito 2009; Esposito 2010).