Comparison of the outcomes and complications of three‑unit porcelain‑fused‑to‑metal tooth‑implant‑supported prostheses with implant‑supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Abstract

Background: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications
of three‑unit porcelain‑fused‑to‑metal tooth‑implant‑supported prostheses in comparison with
implant‑supported prostheses.
Materials and Methods: In this review article, the electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus, LILACS,
Web of Science, EBSCO, LIVIVO, and Embase were searched over the past 20 years until December
2021. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI), fixed effect model, and Mantel–Haenszel method
was calculated. The meta‑analysis was performed with the statistical software Stata/MP v. 16.
Results: Two hundred and three studies were selected for reviewing the abstracts, from which
the full texts of 16 studies were reviewed. Finally, five studies were selected. The risk ratio of
prosthesis failure between the tooth‑implant‑supported prosthesis and the implant‑supported
prosthesis was RR (Risk Ratio)= 1.83 (0.79, 4.24), (P = 0.16) and for prosthesis complication, it was
RR = 0.61 (0.35, 1.06), (P = 0.08). Risk ratio of implant failure between the mentioned groups was
RR = 2.33 (0.84, 6.41), (P = 0.10), and for implant complications, this rate was 0.09 (RR, 0.09 95%
CI − 1.30, 1.48; P = 0.90).
Conclusion: The meta‑analysis of the present study showed that there was no significant difference
between the two groups (three‑unit porcelain‑fused‑to‑metal tooth‑implant‑supported prosthesis
and implant‑supported prosthesis reconstruction) in terms of the total failure of implants and
prostheses and the complication rate of implants and prostheses.
Key Words: Dental Prosthesis, meta‑analysis, systematic review

Highlight 

Amirhossein Fathi: Pubmed,Google Scholar