TABLE 4.
Studies included in the analysis for nonosseointegration and survivor rate
| Author/year | Design | Location | Edentulism | Type of surgery | No. of patients/implants | No. implants/patient | Observation period | Non‐osseointrgation | Survival (implant level) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cristache et al 2021 | RCT | PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS FH | 49/111 66/145 |
2.26 2.19 |
24 mo | no | 100% |
| Derksen et al 2019 | Prospective cohort study | PS | PE | s‐CAIS | 66/145 | 2.19 | 24 mo | 1 implant (0.65%) | 99.30% |
| D’Haese et al 2012 | Prospective clinical trial | AZ, PS | PE | s‐CAIS | 13/78 | 6.00 | 12 mo | n/a | 98.71% |
| Di Giacomo et al 2012 | Prospective study | AZ, PS | PE, FE | s‐CAIS | 12/62 | 5.16 | 30 mo | n/a | 98.33% |
| Ko et al 2021 | RCT | AZ, PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 72/187 | 2.59 | 12 mo | 8 implants (4.27%) in 7 patients |
100% (delayed loading) 83.4% (immediate loading) |
| Kunavisarut et al 2021 | RCT | PS | SI | s‐CAIS FH |
20/20 20/20 |
1 1 |
7 d | no | 100% |
| Kuo et al 2021 | Case series | AZ | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 10/10 | 1 | 12 mo | no | 100% |
| Lerner et al 2020 | Retrospective study | AZ, PS | PE, FE | s‐CAIS | 12/110 | 9.16 | 12 mo | 2 implants (1.81%) in 1 patient | 98.20% |
| Meloni et al 2013 | Prospective case series | AZ, PS | FE | s‐CAIS | 12/72 | 6 | 24 mo | no | 100% |
| Meloni et al 2013 | Prospective clinical study | AZ, PS, | FE | s‐CAIS | 10/60 | 6 | 12 mo | no | 100% |
| Naziri et al 2016 | Prospective clinical study | AZ, PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | n/a | n/a | 3 mo | no | 100% |
| Nocini et al 2013 | Retrospective study | AZ, PS | FE | s‐CAIS | 65/342 | 5.26 | 12‐60 mo (mean 32.87) | 7 implants (2.05%) in 6 patients | 96.50% |
| Mangano et al 2018 | Prospective study | AZ, PS, | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 19/36 | 1.89 | 12 mo | no | 100% |
| Mouhyi et al 2019 | Retrospective study | AZ, PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 38/110 | 2.89 | 12 mo | n/a | 98.18% |
| Peñarrocha et al 2012 | Case control study | n/a | SI, PE |
s‐CAIS FH |
12/19 12/22 |
1.58 1.83 |
3 mo | n/a |
94.8%, 95.4% |
| Pozzi et al 2021 | Prospective cohort study | AZ, PS | PE, FE | d‐CAIS | 10/60 | 6 | 14‐18 mo (mean ± SD 16.2 ± 1.7) | no | 100% |
| Skjerven et al 2019 | Prospective cohort study | n/a | SI | s‐CAIS | 20/27 | 1.35 | n/a | no | 100% |
| Søndergaard et al 2021 | RCT | n/a | SI | s‐CAIS FH |
13/14 12/12 |
1.07 1 |
2 mo | no | 100% |
| Velasco‐Ortega et al 2021 | Prospective clinical study | AZ | FE | s‐CAIS | 14/28 | 2 | 12‐84 mo (mean ± SD 44.7 ± 31.4) | no | 100% |
| Vinci et al 2020 | Retrospective study | AZ, PS | FE | s‐CAIS | 14/100 | 7.14 | 12 mo | no | 100% |
| Zhao et al 2014 | Prospective clinical study | AZ, PS | PE | s‐CAIS | 11/31 | 2.81 | n/a | 1 implant (3.22%) | 93.50% |
Abbrevitions: AZ, esthetic zone; d‐CAIS, dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery; FE, fully edentulous; FH, freehand placement; n/a, the data were not provided in the articles; PE, partially edentulous; PS, posterior; RCT, randomized clinical trial; s‐CAIS, static computer‐assisted implant surgery; SD, standard deviation; SI, single implants.