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