Figure 2. Forest plot
Table 1 Wide-diameter implants
author: Miriam Ting,Matthew Palermo,David P Donatelli,John P Gaughan,Jon B Suzuki, Steven R Jefferies | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Implant diameter (mm)
Implant lengths
No. of implants (total)
Implant type
Implant surface
Prospective clinical study
Placement follow-up/mean (range)
Implant survival (%)
Age range (years)
4.7
8, 10, 13, 16
117
Zimmer (Screw vent, Paragon)
Acid-etched, uncoated
Khayat et al. 2001
Healing 3–6 months plus 17 months loading (11–21 months)
95
–
5.0
7
14
Endopore (Innova Corp)
Sintered porous
Deporter et al. 2001
32.6 months
100
25–76 (53.7)
5.0
8.5, 10, 11.5
15
Mark III WP (Nobel Biocare)
Ti-unite
Schincaglia et al. 2008
3–4 months healing plus
100
35–68 (49.2)
12 months loading
5.0
6
13
Brånemark (Nobel Biocare)
Machined
Friberg et al. 2000
8 years (1–14 years)
100
38–93 (63)
5.0
6, 7, 8, 8.5, 10
109
Brånemark (Nobel Biocare)
Machined
Tawil and Younan 2003
Healing plus 24 months loading
94.5
22–80 (53.6)
5.0
7, 8.5, 10, 11.5
38
Brånemark (Nobel Biocare)
Machined
Polizzi et al. 2000
36 months
92
29–69
Serial posts:
-
A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
-
Review : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
-
Materials and methods : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (1)
-
Materials and methods : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (2)
-
Results : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
-
Discussion : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (1)
-
Discussion : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (2)
-
Conclusion : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
-
Figure 1. Study selection for wide-diameter implant articles
-
Figure 2. Forest plot
-
Figure 3. Funnel plot
-
Table 1 Wide-diameter implants
-
Table 2 Wide surface-treated Implants
-
Table 3 Wide machined implants
-
Table 4 Implants used in the maxilla and mandible
-
Table 5 Meta-analysis implant data—pooled analysis
-
Table 6 Heterogeneity statistics
-
Table 7 Meta-regression—effect of surface and lengths
| Implant diameter (mm) | Implant lengths | No. of implants (total) | Implant type | Implant surface | Prospective clinical study | Placement follow-up/mean (range) | Implant survival (%) | Age range (years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.7 | 8, 10, 13, 16 | 117 | Zimmer (Screw vent, Paragon) | Acid-etched, uncoated | Khayat et al. 2001 | Healing 3–6 months plus 17 months loading (11–21 months) | 95 | – |
| 5.0 | 7 | 14 | Endopore (Innova Corp) | Sintered porous | Deporter et al. 2001 | 32.6 months | 100 | 25–76 (53.7) |
| 5.0 | 8.5, 10, 11.5 | 15 | Mark III WP (Nobel Biocare) | Ti-unite | Schincaglia et al. 2008 | 3–4 months healing plus | 100 | 35–68 (49.2) |
| 12 months loading | ||||||||
| 5.0 | 6 | 13 | Brånemark (Nobel Biocare) | Machined | Friberg et al. 2000 | 8 years (1–14 years) | 100 | 38–93 (63) |
| 5.0 | 6, 7, 8, 8.5, 10 | 109 | Brånemark (Nobel Biocare) | Machined | Tawil and Younan 2003 | Healing plus 24 months loading | 94.5 | 22–80 (53.6) |
| 5.0 | 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5 | 38 | Brånemark (Nobel Biocare) | Machined | Polizzi et al. 2000 | 36 months | 92 | 29–69 |
- A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
- Review : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
- Materials and methods : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (1)
- Materials and methods : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (2)
- Results : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
- Discussion : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (1)
- Discussion : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics (2)
- Conclusion : A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics
- Figure 1. Study selection for wide-diameter implant articles
- Figure 2. Forest plot
- Figure 3. Funnel plot
- Table 1 Wide-diameter implants
- Table 2 Wide surface-treated Implants
- Table 3 Wide machined implants
- Table 4 Implants used in the maxilla and mandible
- Table 5 Meta-analysis implant data—pooled analysis
- Table 6 Heterogeneity statistics
- Table 7 Meta-regression—effect of surface and lengths