Review Article

Soft Tissue Augmentation Techniques in Implants Placed and Provisionalized Immediately: A Systematic Review

Table 1

Checklist for quality assessment. N/A: not applicable; : items applicable to prospective controlled clinical trial.

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (prospective clinical trial)Quality assessment of case series

RandomizationN/A
(1) Were adequate methods used for randomization? (N/A)ā€‰

Patient and site characteristicsPatient and site characteristics
(1) Were patient characteristics well described for both groups?(1) Were patient characteristics well described?
(2) Were site characteristics well described for both groups?(2) Were site characteristics well described?
(3) Were there no disparities in terms of patient or site characteristics between the groups?ā€‰

Patient selectionPatient selection
(1) Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria well described and the same for both groups?(1) Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria well described?
(2) Did the study report consecutively treated patients?(2) Did the study report on consecutively treated patients?

InterventionIntervention
(1) Were interventions for both groups clearly described?(1) Was the intervention clearly described?
(2) Were all patients of the same group treated according to the same intervention?(2) Were all patients treated according to the same intervention?

Evaluation methodEvaluation method
(1) Was blinding used to assess the outcome?(1) Was the outcome assessed by an investigator who had not been involved in the treatment?
(2) Were adequate methods used to assess the outcome?(2) Were adequate methods used to assess the outcome?
(3) Were reproducibility data reported on the outcome variable(s)?(3) Were reproducibility data reported on the outcome variable(s)?

Outcome & follow-upOutcome & follow-up
(1) Was the outcome clearly described?(1) Was the outcome clearly described?
(2) Was an intention-to-treat analysis performed and was there low risk for selective loss to follow-up?(2) Was the response rate acceptable and was the number of patients lost to follow-up clearly described?