Table 1. Criteria of Quality Assessment (a Modified McHarm checklist).

	ITEMS	YES	NO/Not sure
1	Were the harms PRE-DEFINED using standardized or precise definitions?	1	0
	(In present study, we defined “harms” as the totality of adverse consequences of an implant surgery)
2	Were SERIOUS events precisely defined?	1	0
	(In present study, we defined complications that didn't lead to IMPLANT LOSS or IMPLANT REMOVAL as SERIOUS events, e.g. sensitivity on function, radiographic bone loss ≤4 mm or 1/2 of the implant body, probing depth ≤7 mm, etc. [14])
3	Were SEVER events precisely defined?	1	0
	(In present study, we defined IIMPLANT LOSS as SERIOUS events)
4	Did the study specify the TRAINING or BACKGROUND of who ascertained the harms?	1	0
5	Did the study specify the TIMING and FREQUENCY of collection of the harms?	1	0
6	Did the author(s) use STANDARD scale(s) or checklist(s) for harms collection?	1	0
7	Was the NUMBER of participants that withdrew or were lost to follow-up specified for each study group?	1	0
8	Was the TOTAL NUMBER of participants affected by harms specified for each study arm?	1	0
9	Did the author(s) specify the NUMBER for each TYPE of harmful event for each study group?	1	0
10	Did the author(s) specify the type of analyses undertaken for harms data?	1	0
A Total of 10 Points