Type III tests of fixed effects
Num
Den
Effect
DF
DF
F value
P
Surface
1
11
0.84
0.3787
Length
7
11
0.97
0.4951
Location
1
11
0.00
0.9868
Q
P
2.7008
0.7460
I 2
ci−
ci+
0.00 %
0.00 %
74.62 %
τ 2
ci−
ci+
0.0000
0.0000
0.0069
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
0.9...
Study
Implant surface
Implant type
No. of implants in maxilla (no. failed)
No. of implants in mandible (no. failed)
% survived in maxilla
% survived in mandible
Khayat et al. 2001
Acid-etched, uncoated
Zimmer (Screw vent, Paragon)
49 (2)
62 (4)
95.9
93.5
Deporter et al. 2001
Sintered porous
Endopore (Innova Corp)
0
14 (0)
–
100
Schincaglia et al. 2008
...
Study
Implant surface
Implant type
Implant length
No. of implants
No. failed
% survived
Polizzi et al. 2000
Machined
Brånemark (Nobel Biocare)
7
2
0
100
8.5
8
1
87.5
10
15
1
93.3
11.5
13
1
92.3
Friberg et al. 2000
Machined
Brånemark (Nobel Biocare)
6
13
0
100
Tawil and Younan 2003
Machined
Brånemark (Nobel Biocare)
6
16
0
...
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 B...
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
...
Figure 3. Funnel plot
Figure 3. Funnel plot
Figure 1. Study selection for wide-diameter implant articles
Conclusions
This meta-analysis concluded that the location, length, and surface treatment of the wide-diameter implant do not significantly affect its survival. It is therefore suggested with caution that when the conditions of the implant site corresponds to the inclusion criteria used in our meta-analysis, choosing a wide implant in the posterior mandible or maxilla, where implant length may ...
This suggests that the implant surface characteristics may have an impact on implant survival rate based on the implant diameter, and as the diameter of the implant is increased, as in the wide-diameter implant, this impact mConversely, Maló and Araújo Nobre reported significantly more failures for machined compared to surface-treated narrow (3.3-mm diameter) implants.ay not be stati...
The present meta-analysis was limited to prospective clinical studies and utilized a rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies included in the analysis were limited to cases in which implants placed in sites with adequate bone volume without grafting. Implants were placed in healed sites and loaded after at least 1–3 months of healing. All studies had at least 1-year follow-up. Pa...
Results
Of the six studies selected, three evaluated surface-treated implants and three machined implants (Table 1). The included studies all used similar criteria for implant survival, which was defined as the absence of mobility, pain, and radiolucent lesions. The implant survival was based on the percentage of implants evaluated, and the implant lengths in the studies range from 6 to 16 mm (Ta...
Screening and selection
Two reviewers participated in selection of studies (MT and MP). At the initial phase of selection, abstracts and titles of articles were screened by one reviewer (MT) to exclude articles that clearly were not related to wide-diameter dental implants. The previously described inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when including articles for full-text screening. When...
Materials and methods
Focused question
Does length of the wide-diameter implant influence its survival?
Does the surface modification influence its survival compared to machined implant surfaces?
Does the implant placement in the maxilla or the mandible influence its survival?
Literature search and study design
The database on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Cont...
Review
Introduction
Endosseous implants were used reliably in the treatment of various degrees of edentulism. In restoring the edentulous ridge, the clinician could be faced with difficult bony situations. The wide-diameter implant could be used in these situations to improve primary stability by increasing the surface area available for osteointegration. Biomechanically, the wide-diameter imp...
A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics on the survival of the wide-diameter implant
Abstract
The purposes of the study are to study the implant survival of the wide-diameter implant and to analyze if the length, the implant surface, or the placement location has any effect on its survival. Electronic databases were searched from inception to Dec 2014. Studies included in the ...