» Articles » PMID: 31753461

Comparison of Technical, Biological, and Esthetic Parameters of Ceramic and Metal-ceramic Implant-supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal J Prosthet Dent
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2019 Nov 23
PMID 31753461
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Statement Of Problem: Differences between ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses are unclear.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the technical, biological, and esthetic complication rates of implant-supported ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations.

Material And Methods: Six databases were searched to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective cohort studies of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. The survival rate, marginal adaptation, marginal bone loss, pocket probing depth, crown color match, and mucosal discoloration of ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns were assessed. For implant-supported fixed partial dental prostheses (FPDPs), only the survival rate was assessed. The risk of bias was assessed for individual studies and across studies by using the Cochrane guidelines, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and funnel plots.

Results: Twenty studies were included in this meta-analysis. Ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns were compared in terms of the survival rate (OR=0.84 [0.32, 2.23], P=.730), marginal adaptation (mean difference [MD]=0.33 [0.19, 0.47], P<.001), marginal bone loss (MD=-0.03 [-0.07, 0.02], P=.260), pocket probing depth (MD=-0.07 [-0.14, 0.00], P=.060), crown color match (MD=-0.15 [-0.29, 0.00], P=.040), and mucosal discoloration (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.14 [-0.86, 0.58], P=.710). The survival rate of ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported FPDPs was also compared (odds ratio [OR]=1.92 [1.26, 2.94], P=.003).

Conclusions: No significant difference was observed between ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns in terms of the survival rate, marginal bone loss, pocket probing depth, or mucosal discoloration. However, metal-ceramic single crowns had better marginal adaptation and poorer crown color match than did ceramic single crowns. In addition, current evidence indicates that metal-ceramic implant-supported FPDPs might have a higher survival rate than ceramic FPDPs.

Citing Articles

Cutting efficiency of different dental diamond rotary instruments for sectioning monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns.

Borzangy S, Bahabri R, Alsani A, Alqutaibi A, Alghauli M, AbdElaziz M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1135.

PMID: 39334035 PMC: 11437972. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04901-7.


Finite Element Analysis and Fatigue Test of INTEGRA Dental Implant System.

Zielinski R, Lipa S, Piechaczek M, Sowinski J, Kolkowska A, Simka W Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(5).

PMID: 38473684 PMC: 10934518. DOI: 10.3390/ma17051213.


Metallic Dental Implants Wear Mechanisms, Materials, and Manufacturing Processes: A Literature Review.

Saha S, Roy S Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(1).

PMID: 36614500 PMC: 9821388. DOI: 10.3390/ma16010161.


Evaluation and Comparison of Five-Year Survival of Tooth-Supported Porcelain Fused to Metal and All-Ceramic Multiple Unit Fixed Prostheses: A Systematic Review.

Newaskar P, Sonkesriya S, Singh R, Palekar U, Bagde H, Dhopte A Cureus. 2022; 14(10):e30338.

PMID: 36407172 PMC: 9663878. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30338.


Influence of Anodizing Stages on the Preload Force of Implant-Abutment Screws and Their Benefits Regarding the Concept of Immediate Implant Placement-An In Vitro Study.

Rathe F, Weigl P, Wasiak J, Ratka C, Zipprich H Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(3).

PMID: 35160721 PMC: 8837115. DOI: 10.3390/ma15030776.