-
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jun 2015To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs.
CONCLUSIONS
Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Metals
PubMed: 25842099
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts, full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles, resulting in 35 included studies on implant-supported crowns. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8-99.1) for metal-ceramic implant supported SCs (n = 4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3-99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n = 912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7-91.0) of the metal-ceramic SCs (n = 1,300) experienced no biological/technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n = 76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6-93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metal-ceramics. The 5-year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal-ceramic, 2.8% zirconia-ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconia-ceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metal-ceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3 years follow-up time and clinical examination of the present systematic review.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia-ceramic implant-supported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metal-ceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the material groups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328190
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13306 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with metal-ceramic FDPs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies and retrospective case series on implant-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles resulting in 19 studies on implant FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported on 932 metal-ceramic and 175 zirconia-ceramic FDPs. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.8%-99.5%) for metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs, and of 93.0% (95% CI: 90.6%-94.8%) for zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs (p < 0.001). Thirteen studies including 781 metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs estimated a 5-year rate of ceramic fractures and chippings to be 11.6% compared with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) complication rate for zirconia implant-supported FDPs of 50%, reported in a small study with 13 zirconia implant-supported FDPs. Significantly (p = 0.001) more, that is, 4.1%, of the zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs were lost due to ceramic fractures compared to only 0.2% of the metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs. Detailed analysis of factors like number of units of the FDPs or location in the jaws was not possible due to heterogeneity of reporting. No studies on monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the present review. Furthermore, no conclusive results were found for the aesthetic outcomes of both FDP-types.
CONCLUSION
For implant-supported FDPs, conventionally veneered zirconia should not be considered as material selection of first priority, as pronounced risk for framework fractures and chipping of the zirconia veneering ceramic was observed. Monolithic zirconia may be an interesting alternative, but its clinical medium- to long-term outcomes have not been evaluated yet. Hence, metal ceramics seems to stay the golden standard for implant-supported multiple-unit FDPs.
Topics: Ceramics; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328185
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13277 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2018To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies investigating the association of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and copper with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies investigating the association of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and copper with cardiovascular disease.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science searched up to December 2017.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies reporting risk estimates for total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke for levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, or copper were included. Two investigators independently extracted information on study characteristics and outcomes in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Relative risks were standardised to a common scale and pooled across studies for each marker using random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
The review identified 37 unique studies comprising 348 259 non-overlapping participants, with 13 033 coronary heart disease, 4205 stroke, and 15 274 cardiovascular disease outcomes in aggregate. Comparing top versus bottom thirds of baseline levels, pooled relative risks for arsenic and lead were 1.30 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.63) and 1.43 (1.16 to 1.76) for cardiovascular disease, 1.23 (1.04 to 1.45) and 1.85 (1.27 to 2.69) for coronary heart disease, and 1.15 (0.92 to 1.43) and 1.63 (1.14 to 2.34) for stroke. Relative risks for cadmium and copper were 1.33 (1.09 to 1.64) and 1.81 (1.05 to 3.11) for cardiovascular disease, 1.29 (0.98 to 1.71) and 2.22 (1.31 to 3.74) for coronary heart disease, and 1.72 (1.29 to 2.28) and 1.29 (0.77 to 2.17) for stroke. Mercury had no distinctive association with cardiovascular outcomes. There was a linear dose-response relation for arsenic, lead, and cadmium with cardiovascular disease outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium, and copper is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. Mercury is not associated with cardiovascular risk. These findings reinforce the importance of environmental toxic metals in cardiovascular risk, beyond the roles of conventional behavioural risk factors.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Environmental Exposure; Environmental Monitoring; Environmental Pollutants; Environmental Pollution; Humans; Metals, Heavy; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30158148
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k3310 -
International Journal of Paediatric... Jan 2022Preformed metal crowns (PMCs) have been the restoration of choice for paediatric dentistry; however, PMCs have a non-aesthetic appearance, which has become a point of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Preformed metal crowns (PMCs) have been the restoration of choice for paediatric dentistry; however, PMCs have a non-aesthetic appearance, which has become a point of concern. Recently, prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) have been increasingly used as an aesthetic restorative material for primary teeth, as they have pleasing properties.
AIM
This systematic review summarises the clinical results for PZCs in the primary dentition, including wear on the opposing dentition, retention, fracture resistance, parental satisfaction, gingival health, and cementation materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic database searches were conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Clinical trials, observational studies, and case reports/series were included. The quality of the studies was analysed using the Cochrane tool and the domain-based evaluation for non-randomised studies of interventions.
RESULTS
The search retrieved 166 references, of which 14 studies were included for qualitative analyses. The risk of bias varied from low to unclear. The included studies indicated that prefabricated zirconia crowns are retentive and are not associated with accelerated wear on the opposing dentition. They also exhibit a high fracture resistance, satisfy the parents and are compatible with gingival health. There is, however, inconclusive evidence with regard to cementation materials.
CONCLUSION
Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns appear to be a good alternative to preformed metal crowns in term of esthetics, retention, resistance to fracture, parent satisfaction, and gingival health.
Topics: Child; Crowns; Dental Materials; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous; Zirconium
PubMed: 33772904
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12793 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jun 2015To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 10 studies from a previous systematic review [1]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
Forty studies reporting on 1796 metal-ceramic and 1110 all-ceramic FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%). The estimated survival rate of reinforced glass ceramic FDPs was 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4-94.0%), the survival rate of glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs was 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3-94.2%) and the survival rate of densely sintered zirconia FDPs was 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8-94.0%) in 5 years of function. Even though the survival rate of all-ceramic FDPs was lower than for metal-ceramic FDPs, the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (p=0.05). A significantly higher incidence of caries in abutment teeth was observed for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs. Significantly more framework fractures were reported for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs (8.0%) and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (12.9%) compared to metal-ceramic FDPs (0.6%) and densely sintered zirconia FDPs (1.9%) in 5 years in function. However, the incidence of ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly (p=0.018 and 0.028 respectively) higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to all other types of FDPs.
CONCLUSIONS
Survival rates of all types of all-ceramic FDPs were lower than those reported for metal-ceramic FDPs. The incidence of framework fractures was significantly higher for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs and infiltrated glass ceramic FDPs, and the incidence for ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Metals
PubMed: 25935732
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.013 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Apr 2024When restoring endodontically treated teeth, a post system is indicated to retain a core. Clinicians can choose from different post materials and types. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
When restoring endodontically treated teeth, a post system is indicated to retain a core. Clinicians can choose from different post materials and types. However, the literature is inconclusive on the long-term clinical performance of available post systems.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the survival and failure rates of endodontically treated teeth restored either with glass-fiber-reinforced or metal posts.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The research question was formulated by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Type (PICOS) tool. Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus searches complemented by manual search were performed for randomized controlled clinical trials with a follow-up of at least 2 years. Two independent authors performed screening and data extraction of the articles. Meta-analyses were performed with the RevMan software program. Homogeneity was checked by using chi and I tests, and random-effects meta-analyses were applied. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated (α=.05). The publication bias was evaluated by using funnel plots and the Begg and Egger tests.
RESULTS
A total of 184 studies were retrieved through the electronic searches, and an additional 4 through the hand search. After title- and abstract-level exclusion, 23 studies remained for full-text analyses, of which 7 were selected for data extraction. Meta-analyses revealed an overall survival rate of 92.8% for endodontically treated teeth restored with glass-fiber-reinforced posts compared with 78.1% of those restored with metal posts. No statistically significant difference (P>.05) was found in the survival, success, or failure rates.
CONCLUSIONS
No statistically significant differences were found between the survival and failure rates of endodontically treated teeth restored either with glass-fiber-reinforced or metal posts. The overall survival rate was 92.8% for glass fiber posts and 78.1% for metal posts. Both are reliable materials when a significant amount of coronal tooth structure is missing and treatment with a post is indicated.
Topics: Humans; Post and Core Technique; Tooth, Nonvital; Survival Rate; Glass; Metals; Tooth Fractures; Composite Resins
PubMed: 35430048
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.003 -
Journal of Dentistry Sep 2021To evaluate systematically the evidence about the failure rates of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) restored with intraradicular metal posts (MPs) or fiber posts (FPs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate systematically the evidence about the failure rates of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) restored with intraradicular metal posts (MPs) or fiber posts (FPs).
DATA
The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020189792). Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCT) and prospective clinical trials (PCT) that compared the failures between FP and MP restorations for ETT. Meta-analyses were conducted for failure rates using fixed- and random-effects models. Subgroup and funnel plot analyses were performed.
SOURCES
Four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library), manual, and grey literature were screened by two researchers independently for articles published until November 2020 without language or time restrictions. For the analysis of the risk of bias, the Cochrane collaboration tool and ROBINS-I were used. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
STUDY SELECTION
Ten studies were included. A total of 704 participants with a mean age of 42.7 years with a total of 844 ETT were restored using 453 FPs and 391 MPs. The FPs presented similar failures to that with MPs (P=0.39; risk ratio [RR]:0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 1.29). Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences between the FPs and MPs for the anterior region (P=0.60; RR:0.88; [CI]: 0.54 to 1.42), posterior region (P=0.52; RR:1.18; [CI]: 0.71 to 1.98), root fracture (P=0.44; RR:0.78; [CI]: 0.41 to 1.49), and debonding (P=0.56; RR:1.27; [CI]: 0.57 to 2.80). Additionally, FP showed similar failures compared with those of cast (P=0.36; RR:0.63; [CI]: 0.23 to 1.72) and prefabricated MPs (P=0.68; RR:0.90; [CI]: 0.54 to 1.50). The RCT and PCT studies revealed a low risk of bias for most of the domains. However, the certainty of evidence was considered low.
CONCLUSION
No evidence of difference was observed for failure rates between FPs, and MPs, independent of region and different MPs used in ETT. However, further well-conducted clinical studies with high-quality evidence are encouraged.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Our results indicate that both retainer posts can be considered an adequate alternative in restoring ETT. Therefore, the choice of post (fiber or metal) could be based on dentist preference or individual characteristics of the patient as the failure rates for different posts are similar.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Humans; Metals; Post and Core Technique; Risk; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34274439
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103750 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth structure. Traditionally full metal or metal frameworks veneered with ceramic (metal-ceramic (MC)) have been used. In recent years several different metal-free systems have become available to clinicians and patients. In general, metal-free restorations should allow practitioners to better reproduce natural tooth colour, avoiding shortcomings of MC restorations. The comparative in service clinical performance of fixed prosthodontic treatments of different materials is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metal-free materials for prosthodontic restorations compared to metal-ceramic or other conventional all-metal materials.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 3 May 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 3 May 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (searched 3 May 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the clinical performance of metal-free fixed prosthodontic restorations was compared with metal-ceramic (MC) or other conventional restorations in adult patients requiring prosthodontic treatment. RCTs in which the clinical performance of different kinds of metal-free systems were compared among themselves were also considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Available results for the outcomes of interest of the systematic review of the studies included were tabulated as they could not be included in a formal meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials involving a total of 448 participants were included. We judged two trials to be at unclear risk of bias and seven to be at high risk of bias. The majority of items of risk of bias were evaluated to be at unclear or high risk level in more than 50% of the included trials. Each trial except two was addressing a different type of intervention. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results, the latter being due to very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% confidence intervals including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One trial compared metal-free single crowns (full contour zirconia) to cast gold single crowns in 224 participants and found insufficient evidence of a difference in failure rate after one year, but after five years there was some evidence of a benefit for the gold crowns. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for crown complications at either time of assessment.One trial compared three-unit metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) to three-unit metal-ceramic FDPs in 37 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failure at one and six years, but some evidence of a benefit for the lithium disilicate group in terms of bridge complications at six years. One trial compared zirconia-ceramic FDPs to metal-ceramic FDPs in 34 participants but found insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free cantilevered FDPs to metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs in 21 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications, or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported screw retained single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) to metal-ceramic implant-supported screw-retained single crowns in 20 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: crown failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), crown complications, or satisfaction/aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to two years.Two trials compared metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) to metal implant abutments both supporting single crowns in 50 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in abutment failure at one year.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported FDPs made of two different types of zirconia ceramic in 18 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in failures at any time of assessment up to 10 years (i.e. no failures in either treatment group). There was some evidence of a benefit for the zirconia-toughened alumina group in terms of complications (chipping).One trial compared metal-free tooth-supported FDPs made with two different veneering techniques (pressed versus layered) in 40 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group) or complications at any time of assessment up to three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic treatment over metal-ceramic or other type of standard restorations. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on which material to use for fixed prosthodontic treatment on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients. There is urgent need of properly designed RCTs.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zirconium
PubMed: 29261853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2022To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Zirconium
PubMed: 34665900
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871