Table 2 Wide surface-treated Implants
Table 2 Wide surface-treated 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
| Study | Implant surface | Implant type | Implant length | No. of implants | No. failed | % survived |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khayat et al. 2001 | Acid-etched, uncoated | Zimmer (Screw vent, Paragon) | 8 | 29 | 2 | 93.1 |
| 10 | 45 | 4 | 91.1 | |||
| 13 | 28 | 0 | 100 | |||
| 16 | 15 | 0 | 100 | |||
| Deporter et al. 2001 | Sintered porous | Endopore (Innova Corp) | 7 | 14 | 0 | 100 |
| Schincaglia et al. 2008 | Ti-unite | Mark III WP (Nobel Biocare) | 8.5 | 5 | 0 | 100 |
| 10 | 5 | 0 | 100 | |||
| 11.5 | 5 | 0 | 100 |
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