Table 1.
Summary and brief description of the included studies supporting each pronostic factor.
| TOPIC | First Author (Year) [Reference] | Type of Study | Main Focus | Quality Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMPLANT CONNECTION | ||||
| 1 | Vetromilla (2019) [21] | Systematic Review | Mechanical and biological effect on premaxilla | ++ |
| 2 | Caricasulo (2018) [22] | Meta-analysis | Marginal bone loss | +++ |
| 3 | Goiato (2015) [23] | Systematic Review | Mechanical, biological and esthetic performance | +++ |
| LOADING TIME | ||||
| 4 | Esposito (2007) [24] | Cochrane Review | Effectiveness of immediate, early or conventional loading on implants | +++ |
| 5 | Esposito (2013) [25] | Cochrane Review | Effectiveness of immediate, early or conventional loading on implants | +++ |
| 6 | Gallucci (2009) [26] | Systematic Review | Effectiveness of distinct loading moments on distinct clinical conditions | +++ |
| 7 | Papaspyridakos (2009) [27] | Meta-analysis | Effectiveness of distinct loading moments for edentulous jaws with fixed prostheses | +++ |
| 8 | Chen (2019) [28] | Meta-analysis | Effectiveness of distinct loading moments for edentulous jaws with fixed prostheses | +++ |
| 9 | Pardal-Peláez(2020) [29] | Meta-analysis | Effectiveness of immediate loading on marginal bone loss | +++ |
| TRANSMUCOSAL ABUTMENTS | ||||
| 10 | Chen (2019) [30] | Meta-analysis | Abutment heigh and marginal bone loss | +++ |
| 11 | Galindo-Moreno (2016) [31] | Clinical Trial | Abutment heigh and marginal bone loss | + |
| 12 | Blanco (2018) [32] | Clinical Trial | Abutment heigh and marginal bone loss | ++ |
| 13 | Tan (2011) [33] | Clinical Trial | Implant-neck and hard/soft tissues | ++ |
| 14 | Hermann (2001) | Animal Study | Biological width around one and two-piece titanium implants | ++ |
| 15 | Wang (2017) [35] | Meta-analysis | One-time vs. repeated abutment connections in platform-swithed implants | +++ |
| 16 | Koutouzis (2017) [36] | Meta-analysis | Repeated abutment connections and marginal bone loss | +++ |
| Prosthetic Fit | ||||
| 17 | Lewis (2011) [13] | Narrative Review | Prosthodontic considerations for optimizing outcomes for single-implants | +++ |
| 18 | Sasada (2017) [37] | Narrative Review | Biological Consequences of distinct type of implant abutment connections | ++ |
| 19 | de Luna Gomes (2019) [38] | In vitro | Misfit of frameworks made by distinct techniques | + |
| 20 | Hernández-Marcos (2018) [39] | Clinical Trial | Marginal bone loss around implant- vs. abutment-level restorations | + |
| 21 | Katsoulis (2017) [40] | Systematic Review | Misfit and clinical performance | ++ |
| 22 | Abduo (2014) [41] | Narrative Review | Fit of CAD-CAM frameworks | ++ |
| 23 | Jokstad (2015) [42] | Clinical Trial | Long-term clinical effects of misfit in full-arch prostheses | ++ |
| 24 | Jemt (1996) [43] | Clinical Trial | Assesment of the precision of fit | + |
| Provisionalization | ||||
| 25 | Siadat (2017) [44] | Narrative Review | Provisional prostheses options | + |
| 26 | Santosa (2007) [45] | Narrative Review | Provisional prostheses options | + |
| Screw vs. Cement | ||||
| 27 | Millen (2015) [46] | Systematic Review | Complication rates with fixed prostheses | +++ |
| 28 | Wismeijer (2014) [47] | Narrative Review | Consensus staments on implant dentistry | + |
| 29 | Sailer (2012) [48] | Systematic Review | Survival and complication rates | +++ |
| 30 | Lemos (2016) [49] | Meta-analysis | Marginal Bone Loss | ++ |
| 31 | Gaddale (2020) [50] | Meta-analysis | Incidences of Complications | +++ |
| 32 | Whittneben (2014) [51] | Systematic Review | Clinical performance | +++ |
| Impression Techniques | ||||
| 33 | Del’Acqua (2010) [52] | In vitro | Accuracy of two impression techniques | + |
| 34 | Martinez-Rus (2013) [53] | In vitro | Accuracy with different angulations and subgingival levels | ++ |
| 35 | Kim (2015) [54] | Systematic Review | Dimensional Accuracy | +++ |
| 36 | Del’Acqua (2010) [55] | In vitro | Splinting material rigidity | + |
| 37 | Flügge (2016) [56] | In vitro | Digitalization with intraoral scanners | ++ |
| 38 | Flügge (2018) [57] | Meta-analysis | Accuracy among distinct condition | +++ |
| 39 | Schimidt (2020) [58] | Clinical Trial | Digital vs. Conventional full arch impressions | + |
| 40 | Cappare (2019) [59] | Clinical Trial | Digital vs. Conventional full arch impressions | +++ |
| 41 | Mühlemann (2018) [60] | Systematic Review | Efficacy and effectiveness of digital vs. conventional techniques | +++ |
| 42 | Chochlidakis (2016) [61] | Meta-analysis | Digital vs. conventional in fixed prosthodontics | +++ |
| Manufacturing Technique | ||||
| 43 | Boitelle (2014) [62] | Meta-analysis | Fit of CAD-CAM restorations | +++ |
| 44 | Joda (2015) [63] | Clinica Trial | Time-Efficiency Analysis of digital vs. conventional workflow in single implants | + |
| 45 | Joda (2016) [64] | Clinica Trial | Time-Efficiency Analysis of monolithic single implants crowns | ++ |
| 46 | Joda (2017) [65] | Clinica Trial | Time-Efficiency Analysis of monolithic single implants crowns | +++ |
| 47 | Fernández (2014) [66] | In vitro | Microroughness and microgap of three tehcniques | + |
| 48 | Papadiochou (2018) [67] | Systematic Review | Marginal fit depending on the restorative material and fabrication techniques | +++ |
| Occlusal considrations | ||||
| 49 | Koyano (2015) [70] | Narrative Review | Clinical Guidelines | ++ |
| 50 | Kim (2005) [71] | Narrative Review | Clinical Guidelines | ++ |
The quality of the distinct studies was categorized as + (low), ++ (medium), +++ (high) depending on the items that they fulfill depending on the study design: For Systematic Review, the quality was computed by totaling three dichotomic questions: Was a comprehensive literature search performed (at least two databases)?; Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?; Were the methods used to combine or summarize the findings of studies appropriate? For Meta-analysis, the quality was computed by totaling the following dichotomic questions: Was there enough quantity and homogeneity within the included studies?; Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?; Were the methods used to combine or summarize the findings of studies appropriate? For Clinical Trials, the quality was computed by totaling the following dichotomic questions: Was the intervention randomized and concealed?; Was the sample size greater than 30 participants?; Were patients followed for more than one year? For narrative reviews, the quality was computed by totaling the following dichotomic questions: Was the PICO question properly described?; Was the hierarchy of evidence properly described?; Are the findings of clinical relevance? For the animal and in vitro studies, the quality was computed by totaling the following dichotomic questions: Was the design of the experiment effective enough to fulfil primary objectives? Were the analytical methods appropriate for the primary purpose? Are the findings of clinical relevance?