Table 5 Meta-analysis implant data—pooled analysis
Table 5 Meta-analysis implant data—pooled analysis
author: Miriam Ting,Matthew Palermo,David P Donatelli,John P Gaughan,Jon B Suzuki, Steven R Jefferies | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
| Authors | Number | Success | ci− | ci+ | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polizzi et al. | 38 | 0.921 | 0.810 | 0.990 | 12.71 |
| Friberg et al. | 13 | 1.000 | 0.872 | 1.000 | 4.46 |
| Tawil and Younan | 109 | 0.945 | 0.893 | 0.981 | 36.14 |
| Khayat et al. | 111 | 0.946 | 0.895 | 0.982 | 36.80 |
| Deporter et al. | 14 | 1.000 | 0.881 | 1.000 | 4.79 |
| Schincaglia et al. | 15 | 1.000 | 0.888 | 1.000 | 5.12 |
| 300 | 0.963 | 0.934 | 0.985 | 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