Zirconia‑ceramic versus metal‑ceramic implant‑supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Abstract

Implant‑supported prostheses could serve as a reliable restorative option for partial edentulism.
Various restorative materials have been utilized in fabricating these prostheses, impacting
both esthetics and peri‑implant health. The present systematic review aimed to assess the
survival rate and mechanical complications of zirconia ceramic compared to metal‑ceramic
implant‑supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). We conducted searches in
online databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane up until December
2022. A risk‑of‑bias assessment was done for all the included studies. Data extraction was
performed based on the following parameters: author, year, study design, number of implants,
abutment material, age range, observation period, incidence of mechanical complications,
and survival rate. This systematic review included six studies (four randomized controlled
trials and two retrospective studies). The meta‑analysis significantly favored metal‑ceramic
restorations regarding mechanical complications with a risk ratio (RR) value of 1.64 and
P = 0.001. Meta‑analysis showed no difference in metal‑ceramic FDPs in prostheses survival
rate (P = 0.63; RR: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.52–3.37; heterogeneity: P = 0.65; I2: 0%).
While metal‑ceramic multiunit implant‑supported prostheses exhibited fewer mechanical
complications compared to zirconia‑ceramic prostheses, there was no significant difference
in terms of prosthesis survival rate between the two. Hence, both treatments appear to be
viable options for long‑term implant‑supported prostheses.
Key Words: Mechanical complication, metal ceramic, prosthesis survival, zirconia ceramic

Highlight

Naghma Tabarak: Pubmed,Google Scholar