Table 4.

Meta‐analysis for bone levels, probing pocket depth (PPD) and plaque index (PI)

Group	Subgroups	n	Weighted mean difference (WMD)				Heterogeneity
			DL	95% CI		p‐Value	I 2 (%)	p‐Value
				Upper	Lower
BL (mm)
All		10	−0.105	−0.264	0.055	.195	67.4	.001
	Material
	All	7	−0.008	−0.185	0.168	.925	51.8	.053
	Ti vs. Alu	3	0.151	−0.028	0.330	.099	0.0	.495
	Ti vs. Zir	4	−0.078	−0.344	0.188	.566	60.4	.056
	Macroscopic design	2	−0.131	−0.295	0.034	.120	0.0	.699
	Surface topography	0
	Surface manipulation	1a	−0.440	−0.651	−0.229	<.001
PPD (mm)
All		6	0.097	−0.144	0.339	.428	33.4	.186
	Material, All (Ti vs. Zir)	3	−0.137	−0.616	0.343	.576	30.6	.237
	Macroscopic design	2	0.191	−0.209	0.591	.350	67.0	.082
	Surface topography	1a	0.350	−0.309	1.009	.298
	Surface manipulation	0
PI (%)
All		6	−0.095	−3.079	2.889	.950	0.0	.601
	Material , All	4	−1.231	−7.771	5.309	.712	17.5	.303
	Metal vs. Alu
	All	3	0.864	−4.276	6.003	.742
	Ti vs. Alu	2	−1.306	−12.235	9.623	.815	0.0	0.907
	Gold vs. Alu	1a	1.480	−4.344	7.304	.618
	Ti vs. Zir	1a	−20.000	−41.472	1.472	.068
	Macroscopic design	1a	0.000	−29.654	29.654	1.000
	Surface topography	0
	Surface manipulation	1a	0.000	−3.749	3.749	1.000

N, number of studies; DL, DerSimonian & Laird method; CI, confidence interval; I², heterogeneity index; BL, bone loss; Ti, titanium; Alu, alumina; Zir, zirconia; vs., versus; PPD, probing pocket depth; PI, plaque index.

^aMean difference instead of weighted mean difference, as it is based on only one study.