Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
Of the six studies selected, three evaluated surface-treated implants and three machined implants (Table 1).

Results : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics

author: Miriam Ting,Matthew Palermo,David P Donatelli,John P Gaughan,Jon B Suzuki, Steven R Jefferies | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

Results

Of the six studies selected, three evaluated surface-treated implants and three machined implants (Table 1). The included studies all used similar criteria for implant survival, which was defined as the absence of mobility, pain, and radiolucent lesions. The implant survival was based on the percentage of implants evaluated, and the implant lengths in the studies range from 6 to 16 mm (Tables 2 and 3). The number of patients receiving wide implants was not specified in three studies which also evaluated other diameter implants. Only data on the wide-diameter implants in those studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies evaluated only wide-diameter implants. The number of patients evaluated in these studies was as follows: Khayat et al. studied 71 patients, Polizzi et al. studied 34 patients, and Schincaglia et al. studied 15 patients. Schincaglia et al.’s study was a randomized controlled trial evaluating immediate-loading versus delay-loading of wide-diameter implants; only data of the control group that was not immediately loaded was included in the meta-analysis. The mean patient follow-up of the six studies ranged from 1 to 8 years. The location of the implants placed in the selected studies (Table 4) was as follows: two studies evaluated implants placed in the posterior mandible, one study in the edentulous mandible, and three studies in various areas of the maxilla and mandible.

The forest plot (Fig. 2) showed a pooled wide implant survival rate of 96.3 % (Table 5). The funnel plot (Fig. 3) was analyzed for publication bias. No publication bias was found in the selected studies. The meta-analysis heterogeneity statistics were shown in Table 6. The Q statistic was a measure of the total variance of the studies and along with the p-value showed that the studies do not differ significantly from the mean effect. The I2 statistic along with the 95 % uncertainty interval measured the degree of inconsistency among the studies and showed no inconsistencies among the studies. τ​2 was a measure of the between study variance and was defined as 0 if the Q value was less than the expected variance (Number of studies -1). The results showed no significant heterogeneity among the included studies. Within the meta-analysis using a random effects model, a meta-regression showed that the fixed effects of location, length and surface did not have a significant effect (P > 0.05) on survival (Table 7).
 

Serial posts:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in