Table 5 Follow-up time and summary of clinical outcomes

Mangano et al. [40]

44.3 ± SD 19.4

12

100%

Mean rating: 7 out of 10 SD ± 1.6, median 7, 95% CI 6–8

Satisfactory 8/10

Insufficient 2/10*

*adapted during surgery and placed

1/10 patient immediate postoperative complications (pain, discomfort, swelling)

2/10 patient late complications (provisional restoration fracture)

Van den Borre et al. [36]

N.A

12

100%

N.A

No complications reported

Van den Borre et al. [39]

N.A

30.1

*917 days; SD ± 306.89 days

100%

N.A

12/40 postoperative inflammation (i.e., swelling, marked redness, pain)

6/40 apparent soft tissue infection, drainage, exploration and/or mechanical debridement needed

3/40 required one connecting post removal due to persistent and uncontrollable infection

26/40 Partial exposure of the arms not experienced as a functional or esthetic impediment by patients

1/40 Mobility of the implant (> 1 mm)

Chamorro Pons et al. [41]

80

mean: 18.4

range: 4 to 36

100%

Satisfactory 8/8

1/8 needed prosthetic removal and recontouring (soft tissue inflammation/ulceration)

Cebrián et al. [29]

N.A

mean: 20

range: 9 to 38

100%

N.A

No complications reported

Nemtoi et al. [42]

86

12

93%

5/16 not fully satisfactory

Mean satisfaction rate: 4/5

3/16 bleeding

6/16 implant exposure

1/16 implant failure

1/16 fracture of temporary prosthesis

Cerea et al. [43]

N.A

24

95.8%

N.A

3/70 failure due to infection

4/70 postoperative pain/discomfort/swelling

1/70 recurrent infections

4/70 fracture of provisional prosthesis

2/70 ceramic chipping in the definitive prosthesis

Dimitroulis et al. [44]

N.A

Mean: 22.1

range: 5 to 57

95% (85.7% success rate)

Satisfactory 21/21

1/21 Failure (explanted because of chronic pain)

4/21 Salvaged (replacing exposed frames or adding more bone screws)

2/21 (considered failures because exposure of the framework even though the device is still functional)

Mounir et al. [45]

N.A

12

100%

N.A

1/5 wound dehiscence and exposure of the implant. Fully covered subsequently after removal of uncovered rim of the implant

5/5 Ti implants showed 1–2 mm exposure of the platform around the posts. (No interference with prosthetic loading or patient dissatisfaction was reported)

Gellrich et al. [46]

N.A

Mean: 18

range: 14 to 21

100%

Satisfactory 3/3

No complications reported except for partial discomfort/pain in one patient

Korn et al. [47]

135

Mean: 8.2

range: 1 to 29

100%

N.A

Infection 1/10 patients

Exposure of the framework 2/10 patients

Screw-loss 1/10 patients

Rahlf et al. [48]

146

Mean:18.2

range: 6 to 40

100%

N.A

6/6 chronic mucositis

3/6 Framework exposure around posts

Korn et al. [49]

127

Mean: 26

Range: 6 to 74

100%

N.A

1/20 severe infection

1/20 exposed screws needed remotion

9/20 Exposure of the framework