The Comparison of Survival Rates between Narrow Diameter Implants and Standard Diameter Implants: An Updated Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the key objectives is to update knowledge in order to develop treatment and care recommendations based on research findings. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to compare the survival rate of narrow dental implants (NDI) with standard dental implants (SDI). Methods: The international databases targeted for conducting a broad search included PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Embase (Elsevier), which were searched to retrieve articles from January 1, 2000, to the end of July 2022. After the search, studies were screened based on the title, abstract, and full text, and finally, information extraction and quality assessment of the articles were performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale checklist. All analyzes were conducted in STATA software Version 17. Results: = 0.252). In addition, the survival rates in the 2 groups were also measured using meta-analysis and the results showed the survival rates in the 2 groups of NDI and SDI were almost equal. In the SDI group, the survival rate was equal to 94% (95% CI, 90%-98%), and in the NDI group, it was equal to 94% (95% CI, 92%- 98%). Conclusion: Based on the results of the present meta-analysis, the survival rates in the both NDI and SDI groups were almost equal.
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 | 0.030 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".