Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 29;21(1):3–10. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_100_20

Table 4.

Summary of the included studies

Study Study design Number of jaws Total number of implants Number of implants in maxilla Number of implants in mandible Implant Survival Rate (SR) Prosthesis Survival Rate (SR) Bone loss/follow up (mm/months)
Agliardi et al.[1] Prospective 24 96 96 - CSR 100% CSR 100% Axial implants (0.9±0.4/12) Tilted implants (0.8±0.5/12)
Agliardi et al.[2] Prospective 173 692 288 404 CSR 98.36% maxilla CSR 99.73% mandible Not reported 0.9±0.7/12 maxilla 1.2±0.9/12 mandible No significant difference reported between tilted and axial implants
Babbush et al.[3] Retrospective 177 708 436 272 CSR 99.3% maxilla CSR 100% mandible CSR 100% Not reported
Butura et al.[4] Retrospective 219 876 - 876 Axial SR 99.54% Tilted SR 99.7% CSR 99.77% SR 100% Not reported
Capelli et al.[5] Prospective 24 96 - 96 CSR 100% SR 100% Axial implants (0.82±0.64/12) Tilted implants (0.75±0.55/12)
Crespi et al.[6] Prospective 44 176 96 80 Axial SR 100% Tilted SR 96.59% SR 100% Axial implants Axial implant in maxilla in mandible 1.02±0.35/12 1.04±0.30/12 1.08±0.41/24 1.04±0.35/24 1.10±0.45/36 1.06±0.41/36 Tilted implants Tilted implants in Mandible in Mandible 1.05±0.29/12 1.05±0.32/12 1.07±0.46/24 1.09±0.29/24 1.11±0.32/36 1.12±0.12/36
Francetti et al.[7] Prospective 62 248 - 248 CSR 100% SR 100% Axial implants (0.7±0.4/12) Tilted implants (0.7±0.5/12)
Francetti et al.[8] Prospective 16 64 64 - CSR 100% SR 100% Axial implants Tilted implants 0.40±0.27/12 0.32±0.28/12 0.44±0.37/24 0.63±0.38/24 0.85±0.74/36 0.85±0.34/36
Hinze et al.[9] Prospective 37 148 76 72 SR in maxilla 96.6% SR in mandible 98.7% SR 100% Axial implants (0.82±0.31/12) Tilted implants (0.76±0.49/12)
Landazuri-Del Barrio et al.[10] Prospective 16 64 - 64 SR 100% SR 93.75% 0.13±0.03/0 0.83±0.14/12
Malo et al.[11] Prospective 23 92 72 20 CSR in maxilla 97.2% CSR in mandible 100% - 0.2±0.7/0 1.9±0.9/12
Weinstein et al.[12] Prospective 20 80 - 80 CSR 100/24 CSR 100/36 CSR 100/48 CSR 100 Axial implants 0.6±0.3/12 Tilted implants 0.7±0.4/12
Malo et al.[13] Retrospective 242 968 242 968 CSR 98.3/12 CSR 98.0/48 CSR 98.1/24 CSR 98.0/60 CSR 98.0/36 CSR 98.0/72 Not clear Axial implants 1.52±0.31/36 Tilted implants 1.95±0.44/60
Galindo et al.[14] Retrospective 183 732 - 732 SR 99.86% SR 97.27% On average: less than 1/12
Malo et al.[15] Retrospective 32 128 128 - SR 97.6% Not clear 0.9±1.02/12 Axial implants 1.01±1.0/12 Tilted implants 0.9±1.1/12
Balshi et al.[16] Retrospective 200 800 300 500 CSR in maxilla 96.3% CSR in mandible 97.8% CSR 99.0 -
Di et al.[17] Prospective 86 344 152 192 CSR 96.2/33.7 CSR 96.5% Axial implants 0.7±0.2 mm Tilted implants
0.8±0.4 mm
Malo et al.[18] Prospective 245 980 - 980 CSR 98.3/12 CSR 96.3/96 CSR 98.3/24 CSR 94.8/108 CSR 98.6/36 CSR 94.8/120 CSR 98.5/48 CSR 94.8/132 CSR 98.4/60 CSR 98.1/72 CSR 97.9/84 CSR 99.2% Not reported
Aligardi et al.[19] Prospective 32 192 192 - CSR 98.96% CSR 100% Axial implants 1.55±0.31mm Tilted implants 1.46±0.19mm
Cavalli et al.[20] Retrospective 34 136 136 - CSR 100% Not clear Not reported
Lopes et al.[22] Prospective 23 92 72 20 CSR 96.6% 100% 1.7mm/1yr 1.7mm/2yrs 1.9mm/3yrs
Browaeys et al.[23] Prospective 20 80 36 44 CSR 100% 100% Axial Tilted implants implants 1.13±0.71/1 yr 1.55±o. 73 1.55±0.73/3yrs 1.67±1.22
Krennmair et al.[27] Retrospective 38 152 - 152 CSR 100% - Axial implants 1.17±0.26mm/5 yrs Tilted implants 1.24±0.8mm/5 yrs
Malo et al.[26] Retrospective 324 1296 - 1296 CSR 95.4% CSR 99.7% Axial implants 1.74mm/5 yrs Tilted implants 1.76mm/5yrs
Malo et al.[70] Retrospective 14 56 - 56 CSR 98.2% CSR 100% 0.6±0.6/?