Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Postgraduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, Brazil;2. Adjunct Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, Brazil;3. Postgraduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, Brazil;4. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Presidente Prudente Dental School, University of Western São Paulo (UNOESTE), Presidente Prudente, Brazil;5. Postgraduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, Brazil;6. Postgraduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, Brazil;7. Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, Brazil;1. Private practice, Seattle, Wash;2. Private practice, Orange, Calif;3. Director of Implant Dentistry, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas;4. Previous Professor and Graduate Program Director, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas;1. Graduate student, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea;2. Private practice, Seoul, Republic of Korea;3. Professor and Chairman, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea;4. Professor and Chairman, Department of Prosthodontics, Gangnam Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea;1. Assistant, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;2. Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;3. Professor and Chief, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Prosthetic Dentistry), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;4. Professor and Chief, OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;5. Professor, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;6. Professor and Chief, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;1. Graduate student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash;2. Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash;3. Professor Emeritus, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash;4. Clinical Associate Professor and Director, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash;5. Assistance Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash;1. Associate Professor, Prosthodontics Department, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France;1. Saint Andre Hospital, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France;2. Associate Professor, Prosthodontics Department, Paris Descartes University – Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France;2. Dental Department, Henri Mondor Hospital-University Group, AP-HP (Public Assistance-Paris hospital), Creteil, France;3. Associate Professor, Prosthodontics Department, Paris Descartes University – Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France;3. Dental Department, Henri Mondor Hospital-University Group, AP-HP (Public Assistance-Paris Hospital), Creteil, France;1. Graduate student, Aracatuba Dental School, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, Brazil;2. Graduate student, Aracatuba Dental School, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, Brazil;3. Doctoral student, Aracatuba Dental School, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, Brazil;4. Assistant Professor, University of Sacred Heart, São Paulo, Brazil;5. Assistant Professor, Aracatuba Dental School, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, Brazil;6. Professor, Aracatuba Dental School, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | Statement of problemThere is insufficient evidence to recommend the restorative material for implant-supported prostheses.PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies that compared ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations for implant-supported prostheses (within the same study to avoid indirect comparison) in terms of the mechanical and biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rate, and marginal bone loss.Material and methodsTwo independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search in databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for articles indexed until March 31, 2018. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and methods were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The focused question was “Do ceramic restorations have mechanical/biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rates, and marginal bone loss similar to those of metal-ceramic restorations?”ResultsThe search identified 949 references. The interinvestigator agreement using kappa values was 0.87 for PubMed/MEDLINE, 0.93 for Scopus, and 1.0 for the Cochrane Library. After analysis, 12 studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The mechanical complication rate did not differ between ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=.89), independent of the type of prostheses (single crown: P=.63; fixed partial denture: P=.65). The biological complication rate was also not significantly different between ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=.21). The prosthesis survival rate showed no significant differences between the 2 types of restorations (P=.56). Marginal bone loss was also similar for both types of restorations (P=.12).ConclusionsThis systematic review indicated that ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses have similar mechanical and biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rates, and marginal bone loss. Thus, both treatments are appropriate options for long-term rehabilitation treatment. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
