Table 1 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for conventional approach and random effect : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
Table 1 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for conventional approach and random effect : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
author: Corinne Jordi, Khaled Mukaddam, Jrg Thomas Lambrecht, Sebastian Khl | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Conventional
Event rate
Lower limit
Upper limit
z value
p value
Weight
Galindo-Moreno et al. 2007 [15]
0.005
0.000
0.076
− 3.726
0.000
0.445
Marchetti et al. 2007 [16]
0.010
0.001
0.143
− 3.218
0.001
0.443
Delibasi et al. 2013 [67]
0.043
0.006
0.252
− 3.023
0.003
0.753
van den Bergh et al. 1998 [5]
0.048
0.016
0.140
− 5.033
0.000
1.507
Krekmanov et al. 1995 [17]
0.071
0.030
0.160
− 5.527
0.000
1.870
Watzek et al. 1998 [18]
0.100
0.038
0.238
− 4.169
0.000
1.683
Zijderveld et al. 2008 [19]
0.102
0.059
0.171
− 7.153
0.000
2.394
Papa et al. 2005 [20]
0.105
0.054
0.197
− 5.726
0.000
2.162
Rickert et al. 2011 [73]
0.111
0.042
0.261
− 3.921
0.000
1.673
Rickert et al. 2013 [10]
0.111
0.042
0.261
− 3.921
0.000
1.673
Lindenmüller and Lambrecht 2006 [21]
0.112
0.063
0.191
− 6.462
0.000
2.343
Penarrocha-Diago et al. 2012 [22]
0.125
0.048
0.289
− 3.640
0.000
1.661
Kaptein et al. 1998 [23]
0.159
0.097
0.251
− 5.713
0.000
2.438
Cha et al. 2014 [24]
0.161
0.118
0.216
− 8.932
0.000
2.765
Tawil et al. 2001 [25]
0.167
0.071
0.343
− 3.285
0.001
1.791
Yilmaz et al. 2012 [26]
0.172
0.098
0.284
− 4.746
0.000
2.305
Cho et al. 2001 [27]
0.184
0.098
0.317
− 4.043
0.000
2.178
van den Bergh et al. 2000 [28]
0.200
0.093
0.379
− 3.037
0.002
1.894
Becker et al. 2008 [68]
0.204
0.154
0.265
− 7.779
0.000
2.791
Ewers et al. 2005 [29]
0.206
0.156
0.266
− 7.894
0.000
2.801
Aimetti et al. 2001 [30]
0.214
0.100
0.402
− 2.821
0.005
1.881
Hernández-Alfaro et al. 2008 [69]
0.219
0.184
0.259
− 11.435
0.000
2.934
Barone et al. 2008 [31]
0.231
0.076
0.522
− 1.829
0.067
1.346
Khoury et al. 1999 [3]
0.241
0.188
0.302
− 7.217
0.000
2.831
Barone et al. 2006 [32]
0.250
0.182
0.334
− 5.297
0.000
2.701
Raghoebar et al. 2001 [33]
0.258
0.200
0.327
− 6.230
0.000
2.805
Kim et al. 2011 [34]
0.259
0.129
0.453
− 2.391
0.017
1.948
Shlomi et al. 2004 [35]
0.274
0.184
0.387
− 3.714
0.000
2.533
Wannfors et al. 2000 [36]
0.275
0.159
0.432
− 2.738
0.006
2.228
Hallman et al. 2004 [37]
0.300
0.164
0.483
− 2.127
0.033
2.080
Bornstein et al. 2008 [38]
0.305
0.201
0.433
− 2.911
0.004
2.466
Ardekian et al. 2006 [39]
0.318
0.238
0.411
− 3.723
0.000
2.709
Kazancioglu et al. 2013 [40]
0.320
0.169
0.522
− 1.758
0.079
1.982
Raghoebar et al. 1999 [41]
0.321
0.249
0.403
− 4.129
0.000
2.775
Philippart et al. 2003 [42]
0.333
0.158
0.571
− 1.386
0.166
1.761
Scarano et al. 2015 [43]
0.333
0.131
0.624
− 1.132
0.258
1.455
Oh et al. 2011 [44]
0.343
0.276
0.416
− 4.085
0.000
2.830
Raghoebar et al. 1997 [45]
0.346
0.250
0.455
− 2.731
0.006
2.623
Jensen et al. 1994 [46]
0.352
0.274
0.438
− 3.307
0.001
2.764
Froum et al. 2013 [47]
0.375
0.240
0.532
− 1.564
0.118
2.320
Stricker et al. 2003 [48]
0.379
0.271
0.501
− 1.950
0.051
2.560
Levin et al. 2004 [49]
0.468
0.362
0.578
− 0.562
0.574
2.648
Schwartz-Arad et al. 2004 [4]
0.469
0.364
0.578
− 0.555
0.579
2.657
Papa et al. 2009 [50]
0.511
0.371
0.649
0.146
0.884
2.437
Kasabah et al. 2003 [6]
0.562
0.480
0.640
1.486
0.137
2.812
Krennmair et al. 2007 [51]
0.575
0.420
0.717
0.945
0.345
2.343
Random
0.240
0.205
0.278
− 11.262
0.000
Table 1 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for conventional approach and random effect
Serial posts:
-
Abstract : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [1]
-
Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [2]
-
Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [3]
-
Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [4]
-
Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [5]
-
Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [6]
-
Conclusions : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [1]
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [2]
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [3]
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [4]
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [5]
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [6]
-
References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [7]
-
Acknowledgements : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Author information : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Ethics declarations : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Rights and permissions : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
About this article : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Table 1 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for conventional approach and random effect : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Table 2 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for piezosurgical approach and random effect : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
-
Fig. 1. Result of the search strategy and included and excluded studies : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sin
-
Fig. 2. Forest plot of random effects meta-analysis of the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation using conventional rotative instruments. The weighted average for the incidence rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation was 24% : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sin
-
Fig. 3. Forest plot of random effects meta-analysis of the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation using piezoelectric devices. The weighted average for the incidence rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation was 8% : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sin
| Conventional | Event rate | Lower limit | Upper limit | z value | p value | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galindo-Moreno et al. 2007 [15] | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.076 | − 3.726 | 0.000 | 0.445 |
| Marchetti et al. 2007 [16] | 0.010 | 0.001 | 0.143 | − 3.218 | 0.001 | 0.443 |
| Delibasi et al. 2013 [67] | 0.043 | 0.006 | 0.252 | − 3.023 | 0.003 | 0.753 |
| van den Bergh et al. 1998 [5] | 0.048 | 0.016 | 0.140 | − 5.033 | 0.000 | 1.507 |
| Krekmanov et al. 1995 [17] | 0.071 | 0.030 | 0.160 | − 5.527 | 0.000 | 1.870 |
| Watzek et al. 1998 [18] | 0.100 | 0.038 | 0.238 | − 4.169 | 0.000 | 1.683 |
| Zijderveld et al. 2008 [19] | 0.102 | 0.059 | 0.171 | − 7.153 | 0.000 | 2.394 |
| Papa et al. 2005 [20] | 0.105 | 0.054 | 0.197 | − 5.726 | 0.000 | 2.162 |
| Rickert et al. 2011 [73] | 0.111 | 0.042 | 0.261 | − 3.921 | 0.000 | 1.673 |
| Rickert et al. 2013 [10] | 0.111 | 0.042 | 0.261 | − 3.921 | 0.000 | 1.673 |
| Lindenmüller and Lambrecht 2006 [21] | 0.112 | 0.063 | 0.191 | − 6.462 | 0.000 | 2.343 |
| Penarrocha-Diago et al. 2012 [22] | 0.125 | 0.048 | 0.289 | − 3.640 | 0.000 | 1.661 |
| Kaptein et al. 1998 [23] | 0.159 | 0.097 | 0.251 | − 5.713 | 0.000 | 2.438 |
| Cha et al. 2014 [24] | 0.161 | 0.118 | 0.216 | − 8.932 | 0.000 | 2.765 |
| Tawil et al. 2001 [25] | 0.167 | 0.071 | 0.343 | − 3.285 | 0.001 | 1.791 |
| Yilmaz et al. 2012 [26] | 0.172 | 0.098 | 0.284 | − 4.746 | 0.000 | 2.305 |
| Cho et al. 2001 [27] | 0.184 | 0.098 | 0.317 | − 4.043 | 0.000 | 2.178 |
| van den Bergh et al. 2000 [28] | 0.200 | 0.093 | 0.379 | − 3.037 | 0.002 | 1.894 |
| Becker et al. 2008 [68] | 0.204 | 0.154 | 0.265 | − 7.779 | 0.000 | 2.791 |
| Ewers et al. 2005 [29] | 0.206 | 0.156 | 0.266 | − 7.894 | 0.000 | 2.801 |
| Aimetti et al. 2001 [30] | 0.214 | 0.100 | 0.402 | − 2.821 | 0.005 | 1.881 |
| Hernández-Alfaro et al. 2008 [69] | 0.219 | 0.184 | 0.259 | − 11.435 | 0.000 | 2.934 |
| Barone et al. 2008 [31] | 0.231 | 0.076 | 0.522 | − 1.829 | 0.067 | 1.346 |
| Khoury et al. 1999 [3] | 0.241 | 0.188 | 0.302 | − 7.217 | 0.000 | 2.831 |
| Barone et al. 2006 [32] | 0.250 | 0.182 | 0.334 | − 5.297 | 0.000 | 2.701 |
| Raghoebar et al. 2001 [33] | 0.258 | 0.200 | 0.327 | − 6.230 | 0.000 | 2.805 |
| Kim et al. 2011 [34] | 0.259 | 0.129 | 0.453 | − 2.391 | 0.017 | 1.948 |
| Shlomi et al. 2004 [35] | 0.274 | 0.184 | 0.387 | − 3.714 | 0.000 | 2.533 |
| Wannfors et al. 2000 [36] | 0.275 | 0.159 | 0.432 | − 2.738 | 0.006 | 2.228 |
| Hallman et al. 2004 [37] | 0.300 | 0.164 | 0.483 | − 2.127 | 0.033 | 2.080 |
| Bornstein et al. 2008 [38] | 0.305 | 0.201 | 0.433 | − 2.911 | 0.004 | 2.466 |
| Ardekian et al. 2006 [39] | 0.318 | 0.238 | 0.411 | − 3.723 | 0.000 | 2.709 |
| Kazancioglu et al. 2013 [40] | 0.320 | 0.169 | 0.522 | − 1.758 | 0.079 | 1.982 |
| Raghoebar et al. 1999 [41] | 0.321 | 0.249 | 0.403 | − 4.129 | 0.000 | 2.775 |
| Philippart et al. 2003 [42] | 0.333 | 0.158 | 0.571 | − 1.386 | 0.166 | 1.761 |
| Scarano et al. 2015 [43] | 0.333 | 0.131 | 0.624 | − 1.132 | 0.258 | 1.455 |
| Oh et al. 2011 [44] | 0.343 | 0.276 | 0.416 | − 4.085 | 0.000 | 2.830 |
| Raghoebar et al. 1997 [45] | 0.346 | 0.250 | 0.455 | − 2.731 | 0.006 | 2.623 |
| Jensen et al. 1994 [46] | 0.352 | 0.274 | 0.438 | − 3.307 | 0.001 | 2.764 |
| Froum et al. 2013 [47] | 0.375 | 0.240 | 0.532 | − 1.564 | 0.118 | 2.320 |
| Stricker et al. 2003 [48] | 0.379 | 0.271 | 0.501 | − 1.950 | 0.051 | 2.560 |
| Levin et al. 2004 [49] | 0.468 | 0.362 | 0.578 | − 0.562 | 0.574 | 2.648 |
| Schwartz-Arad et al. 2004 [4] | 0.469 | 0.364 | 0.578 | − 0.555 | 0.579 | 2.657 |
| Papa et al. 2009 [50] | 0.511 | 0.371 | 0.649 | 0.146 | 0.884 | 2.437 |
| Kasabah et al. 2003 [6] | 0.562 | 0.480 | 0.640 | 1.486 | 0.137 | 2.812 |
| Krennmair et al. 2007 [51] | 0.575 | 0.420 | 0.717 | 0.945 | 0.345 | 2.343 |
| Random | 0.240 | 0.205 | 0.278 | − 11.262 | 0.000 |
Table 1 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for conventional approach and random effect
- Abstract : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [1]
- Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [2]
- Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [3]
- Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [4]
- Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [5]
- Review : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [6]
- Conclusions : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [1]
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [2]
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [3]
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [4]
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [5]
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [6]
- References : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis [7]
- Acknowledgements : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Author information : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Ethics declarations : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Rights and permissions : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- About this article : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Table 1 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for conventional approach and random effect : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Table 2 Overview on the event rate (with lower and upper limits, z value), weight and significance (p values) for piezosurgical approach and random effect : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device—a meta-analysis
- Fig. 1. Result of the search strategy and included and excluded studies : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sin
- Fig. 2. Forest plot of random effects meta-analysis of the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation using conventional rotative instruments. The weighted average for the incidence rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation was 24% : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sin
- Fig. 3. Forest plot of random effects meta-analysis of the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation using piezoelectric devices. The weighted average for the incidence rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation was 8% : Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sin