Stability of tapered and parallel‐walled dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have suggested that dental implants with a tapered configuration have improved stability at placement, allowing immediate placement and/or loading. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the implant stability of tapered dental implants compared to standard parallel-walled dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Applying the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in electronic databases and complemented by hand searching. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and data were analyzed using statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 1199 studies were identified, of which, five trials were included with 336 dental implants in 303 participants. Overall meta-analysis showed that tapered dental implants had higher implant stability values than parallel-walled dental implants at insertion and 8 weeks but the difference was not statistically significant. Tapered dental implants had significantly less marginal bone loss compared to parallel-walled dental implants. No significant differences in implant failure rate were found between tapered and parallel-walled dental implants. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of tapered dental implants in achieving greater implant stability compared to parallel-walled dental implants. Superior short-term results in maintaining peri-implant marginal bone with tapered dental implants are possible. Further properly designed RCTs are required to endorse the supposed advantages of tapered dental implants in immediate loading protocol and other complex clinical scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".