Review Article

Does the Implant Surgical Technique Affect the Primary and/or Secondary Stability of Dental Implants? A Systematic Review

Table 3


Padmanabhan and Gupta 2010 [48]Shayesteh et al.
2013 [49]
Marković et al.
2011 [55]
Stacchi et al.
2013 [11]
Turkyilmaz et al.
2008 [51]
Marković et al.
2013 [50]
Alghamdi et al.
2011 [52]
Katsoulis et al.
2012 [32]
García-Morales et al. 2012 [53]

(1) The study sample represents the population of interest with regard to key characteristics, sufficient to limit potential bias to the resultsUnclear Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear UnclearYes

(2) Loss to follow-up is unrelated to key characteristics (i.e., the study data adequately represent the sample), sufficient to limit potential bias Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes YesYesYesYes

(3) The prognostic factor of interest is adequately measured in study participants, sufficient to limit potential bias. (n these studies the prognostic factor was the surgical technique)Yes Yes Yes Yes YesUnclearYesYes Yes

(4) The outcome of interest is adequately measured in study participants, sufficient to limit bias. (The outcome was the primary and/or secondary stability)Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Unclear Yes UnclearUnclearYes

(5) Important potential confounders are appropriately accounted for, limiting potential bias with respect to the prognostic factor of interest. (e.g., implant dimensions and bone density)YesNo YesYesYesYesNoNoYes

(6) The statistical analysis is appropriate for the design of the study, limiting potential for the presentation of invalid resultsYesYes YesYes Yes YesYesyesYes

Category and situation of the article4 ‘‘yes:’’ moderate methodol quality included3 ‘‘yes:’’ Moderate methodol quality included5 ‘‘yes:’’ High methodol quality excluded*5 “yes:” High methodol quality included4 ‘‘yes:’’ Moderate methodol quality included4 ‘‘yes:’’ Moderate methodol quality included3 ‘‘yes:’’ Moderate methodol quality included3 ‘‘yes:’’ Moderate methodol quality included6 “yes:” high methodological quality included

The articles conducted by the same author had some overlapping patients. After ranking these studies, the one with the highest score was included in the systematic review, the others were excluded.