ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2024
Do dental implants installed in different types of bone (I, II, III, IV) have different success rates? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Failure rate and treatment plan options of dental implants in patients with fibro-osseous lesions: a systematic review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Repeatability and reproducibility of a new classification for measuring primary stability of dental implants based on progressive insertion torque value: An analytical observational study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- A Comparative Evaluation of the Primary and Secondary Stability of Dental Implants with Progressive and Conventional Thread Designs: A Prospective Non-Interventional Study of 100 Implants in 62 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the survival rate of implants installed in bone type IV (Lekholm and Zarb, 1995) compared to that of implants installed in bone types I, II, and III. Material and methods: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) and was registered in the PROSPERO International Database of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021229775). The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched through July 2021. The PICO question was: "Dental implants installed in type IV bone have a lower success rate when compared to implants installed in type I bone, II and III?". The established inclusion criteria were: 1) controlled and randomized clinical trials (RCT), 2) prospective and retrospective studies with at least 10 participants with dental implants, and 3) patients with dental implants installed in bone tissue types I, II, III, and IV (Lekholm and Zarb, 1985). The minimum followup duration was 1 year. Results: After searching the identified databases, 117 articles were selected for full reading and 68 were excluded. Thus, 49 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. The total number of participants included was 12,056, with a mean age of 41.56 years and 29,905 implants installed. Bone types I, II, and III exhibit a lower implant failure rate when compared to bone type IV. Conclusion: Dental implants installed in bone types I, II, and III showed significantly higher survival rates than those installed in type IV. The bone type I success rate was not significantly different than that of type II; however, the success rate of bone type I and II was higher than that of type III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.