Home Dental Radiology Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic posterior multiunit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses

Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic posterior multiunit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses

by adminjay


To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription.
Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.

Figure 1

Risk of bias summary. Review authors’ judgment about each risk of bias item for each included study. Red (-) corresponds to high risk, green (+) to low risk and yellow (?) to uncertain risk of bias.

Figure 2

Forest plot for meta-analysis of risk difference of zirconia-ceramic (ZC) versus metal-ceramic (MC) fixed dental prostheses in terms of global ceramic chipping. CI: Confidence interval.

eFigure

Flowchart of the study selection process.

Abstract

Background

The authors aimed to compare the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic (ZC) versus metal-ceramic (MC) restorative material in multiunit tooth-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDP).

Types of Studies Reviewed

The authors conducted a systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no time or language restrictions, up to May 2019 using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, followed by a manual search.

Results

The authors included 7 RCTs in the review and 5 RCTs in the meta-analysis. All studies had a low risk of bias. The authors included 330 participants (177 ZC and 173 MC tooth-supported FDP) in the meta-analysis, which revealed a medium-term survival rate of 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.5% to 99.1%) for ZC FDP compared with 96.9% (95% CI, 94.3% to 99.4%) for MC FDP, with no significant differences (P = .364). The biological or technical complications did not show statistically significant differences, except in the global ceramic veneering chipping analysis (P = .023; risk difference [RD], 22.3%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 41.6%) and their subanalysis: minor chipping or chipping that can be solved with polishing (P = .044; RD, 19.5%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 38.4%), and major chipping or chipping that needs repair in the laboratory (P = .023; RD, 6.0%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 11.3%).

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Posterior multiunit ZC restorations are considered a predictable treatment in the medium term, although they are slightly more susceptible to chipping of the veneering ceramic than MC restorations.



Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Comment