380 Moraschini et al.

risk of bias

cumulative mean for the studies that

Potential

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate
Moderate

Moderate

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

reported success rates. The list of the other

High

High

High
High
Low
Low

Low

Low

Low

success rates and the criteria adopted are

shown in Table 6.
Total
(16)
10
10
11
12
12
11
12
12

12

11

12
11
14
13
11

12
12
10
14
12
14
11
13
9

9
9

Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was
Conclusions

to evaluate the survival/success rates of

(1)

osseointegrated implants by means of an-

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

alyzing longitudinal studies that con-

ducted a follow-up of 10 or more years.
Following the application of the inclu-
evaluated (2)
of implants

sion/exclusion criteria and careful quality

Number

analysis, a high number of the pre-selected

articles were excluded. For this review,
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2

1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2

preference was given to controlled RCTs,

as they are the studies preferred for the
Randomized

elaboration of longitudinal studies in im-

study (1)

plant dentistry8 and because they are one

of the most reliable sources of information
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0

for clinical practice.50,51 Nevertheless, be-

cause of the low level of scientific avail-
ability,50 only four RCTs30,32,43,46 that met
Description of
objectives (2)

the criteria established for this review

were identified; the other articles included
were related to prospective and retrospec-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

tive studies.
To allow the survival and success of
success (1)

implants to be analyzed appropriately, a

Criteria of

minimum of 5 years of follow-up is nec-

essary.15,52 After an exhaustive search of
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1

the literature, we found few studies that

analyzed the survival of implants in ac-
described (2)

cordance with this duration of follow-up.

Statistical
methods

Other authors have argued that a period of

5 years may still be too short to enable
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
reliable information to be obtained, such
as the survival rate.53
This review revealed a mean survival
Description of
population (1)

rate of 94.6% (SD 5.97%) for a total of

7711 implants in 23 studies, with a follow-
up period of up to 20 years (mean follow-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
up of 13.4 years). The studies that con-
ducted the longest period of follow-up, 20
years,3,24,26,38 presented a mean survival
criteria (2)
Selection
Table 2. Evaluation of the quality of articles included.

rate of 91.2% (SD 12%). In 2002, a sys-

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
tematic review analyzing longitudinal
studies of up to 5 years, observed an
implant survival rate of 97.5% up to the
Follow-up

second stage of surgery.8 Also in the year

time (2)

2002, another study observed a survival

2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2

2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
rate of 96.5% for 1583 implants placed in
various regions of the mouth, with a fol-
low-up period of 5 years as well.54 These
size (2)
Sample

results demonstrated a reduction in the

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
survival rate of implants over time during
follow-up.

Leonhardt et al.37
Karoussis et al.34
The study with the lowest survival rate

Telleman et al.47
Mangano et al.39
Lekholm et al.36

van Steenberghe
Deporter et al.25
Deporter et al.26
Carlsson et al.27

Mertens et al.40
Astrand et al.24

Ostman et al.42

Simonis et al.6
Romeo et al.45
in this review, 73.4%,26 had a follow-up

Ravald et al.43
Degidi et al.28

Jacobs et al.30

Rocci et al.44
Misje et al.41

Pikner et al.3
Gotfredsen29

Lops et al.38
Kim et al.35
Johansson31
period of 20 years and evaluated implants

Ma et al.46
Ji et al.33
Jemt and
with treated surfaces, lengths of 7, 8, 9,
Author

et al.48
Jemt32
and 10 mm, and supporting dentures of
the mandibular overdenture type, with