Page 74 - Peri-implant health: the effect of implant design and surgical procedure on bone and soft tissue stability

CHAPTER 4
Table 2: Continued
Pettersson et al.86 Sivolella et al.87
Berberi et al.88 Mangano et al.89
Rossi et al.90
Vázquez Alvarez et al.91 Nack et al.92
Korfage et al.93 Cavalli et al.94
Maló et al.95
Anitua et al.96 Ebinger et al.97 Jeong et al.98 Konstantinidis et al.99 Fretwurst et al.100 Krebs et al.101 Quaranta et al.102 Rossi et al.103
Mijiritsky et al.104
Grassi et al.105
Dasmah et al.106
De Bruyn et al.107 Sbordone et al.108 Stellingsma et al.109 Duttenhoefer et al.110
Zou et al.111 Hjalmarsson et al.112
Incomplete data about number of patients and/or implants
Incomplete data about follow up time Zirconia implants Autologous onlay grafted bone
Patients treated with implants after oral tumors No consensus about bone loss
2015 2013 2014 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016
2013 2015
2013 2013 2012 2014 2015
2015 2011
or where data were presented without making distinction between implant brands or surface topography.
For the descriptive statistics the results of the individual studies were weighted by the number of implants to prevent studies with extremely homogenous groups dominating the results. After the descriptive followed the assessment of the inter study variability. Preliminary analysis performed showed that the multitude of intervening factors jeopardized the successful reduction of the intra study variability by means of a meta-regression. As argument to sustain this statement
72