Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported pro... - BV FAPESP
Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Full text
Author(s):
Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [1] ; Verri, Fellippo Ramos [1] ; de Luna Gomes, Jessica Marcela [1] ; de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo [2] ; Cruz, Ronaldo Silva [1] ; Fernandes e Oliveira, Hiskell Francine [1] ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [1]
Total Authors: 7
Affiliation:
[1] Sao Paulo State Univ, UNESP, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Aracatuba - Brazil
[2] Univ Western Sao Paulo, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente Dent Sch, Dept Prosthodont, Presidente Prudente - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 2
Document type: Review article
Source: JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY; v. 121, n. 6, p. 879+, JUN 2019.
Web of Science Citations: 1
Abstract

Statement of problem. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the restorative material for implant-supported prostheses. Purpose. The 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 methods. Two 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?{''} Results. The 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). Conclusions. This 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. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 15/24442-8 - Biomechanical analysis of implant-supported prosthesis varying the type connection, the retention system, restorative material, type and level of bone tissue. Study by three-dimensional finite element method.
Grantee:Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos
Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Doctorate