Caroliene Meijndert

126 Chapter 7 Study Random effects model Allen et al., 2017 Bashutski et al., 2013 Berberi et al., 2014 Cooper et al., 2001 Cooper et al., 2007 Cooper et al., 2014 Cooper et al., 2019 (a) Cosyn et al., 2015 De Bruyckere et al., 2018 Eghbali et al., 2018 Esposito et al., 2015 Friberg et al., 2019 Gotfredsen, 2012 Grandi et al., 2013 Heydecke et al., 2019 Hosseini et al., 2019 Hsu et al., 2016 (a) Jonker et al., 2018 Kemppainen et al., 1997 Meijndert et al., 2019 Norton, 2004 Palmer et al., 2000 Raes et al., 2015 Raes et al., 2018 Slagter et al., 2016 Vanlioglu et al., 2012 Vanlioglu et al., 2014 Wittneben et al., 2020 Yildiz et al., 2016 Zuiderveld et al., 2018 Zuiderveld et al., 2019 Mean −0.16 −0.41 −0.52 −0.04 −0.40 −0.14 0.02 −0.04 −0.48 −0.60 −0.09 −0.27 −0.41 −0.09 −0.60 −0.38 −0.02 −0.21 −0.42 −0.14 −0.03 −0.55 0.02 0.02 −0.06 −0.65 −0.05 −0.10 −0.10 0.08 −0.02 0.05 SD 0.26 0.51 0.03 0.51 0.32 0.26 0.17 0.46 0.69 0.08 0.14 0.36 0.04 0.51 0.34 0.07 0.56 0.55 0.10 0.13 0.49 0.10 0.45 0.24 0.46 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.82 0.11 0.44 N 20 24 20 53 43 49 45 50 42 32 46 22 10 24 90 33 13 43 35 50 11 14 85 18 20 10 55 39 29 40 40 95%−CI [−0.19; −0.13] [−0.52; −0.29] [−0.73; −0.32] [−0.05; −0.02] [−0.54; −0.26] [−0.23; −0.05] [−0.05; 0.09] [−0.09; 0.01] [−0.61; −0.35] [−0.81; −0.39] [−0.12; −0.07] [−0.31; −0.23] [−0.56; −0.26] [−0.11; −0.06] [−0.80; −0.40] [−0.45; −0.31] [−0.05; 0.00] [−0.51; 0.09] [−0.59; −0.26] [−0.17; −0.11] [−0.06; 0.01] [−0.84; −0.26] [−0.03; 0.08] [−0.08; 0.11] [−0.17; 0.05] [−0.85; −0.45] [−0.06; −0.05] [−0.12; −0.08] [−0.15; −0.04] [−0.22; 0.38] [−0.05; 0.01] [−0.09; 0.19] −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 Mean and 95% CI Figure 2. Forest plots for random effects meta-analysis of studies evaluating bone level change in the PS-Conical group ii. Implant loss Forty-seven study groups reported on implant survival. The percentage of pooled implant loss per year was 0.19 (95% CI: 0.16-0.21) with 0.13 (95% CI: 0.10-0.16) in the PS-conical group, 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.33) in the PS-parallel group, and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.55-0.91) in the PM-parallel group. A meta-regression analysis revealed a significant statistical difference in implant loss between the PS-conical and the PM-parallel groups. The was no statistical difference found when PS-conical vs. PS-parallel (p=0.79) and PS-parallel vs.PM -parallel (p=0.10) were analysed. Forest plots of the random effects meta-analysis are depicted in supplementary figure 4 .