COMPARISON 2: RPD versus SDA for Treated and untreated Shortened Dental Arches (40–48).

EXPLANATION OF TABLE ABOVE:*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) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). KEY: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
Explanation for the GRADE Working Group QUALITY 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.
REASONS for the QUALITY of the Evidence: 1Small sample size; 2High risk of bias for blinding and selective reporting bias; 3Wide confidence interval- the 95% CI includes both null effect and appreciable harm and 4No significant changes were reported for the Irish study. For the German study: Significant differences were seen at baseline (27.0; p<0.0001) and 1 year on (13.0; p<0.0002) for the RPDP group and a significant change in impacts (19.0; p<0.05) were observed only at baseline for the SDA group.