Monolithic zirconia as a valid alternative to metal-ceramic for implant-supported single crowns in the posterior region: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Tajti, Péter [Tajti, Péter (fogpótlástan), author] Department of Prosthodontics (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Solyom, Eleonora [Sólyom, Eleonóra (Parodontológia), author] Department of Periodontology (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Czumbel, László Márk [Czumbel, László Márk (Fogorvos), author] Department of Periodontology (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Szabó, Bence [Szabó, Bence (Biológia, paleont...), author] Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Fazekas, Réka [Fazekas, Réka (Fogorvostudomány), author] Department of Conservative Dentistry (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Németh, Orsolya [Németh, Orsolya (Fogpótlástan), author] Department of Community Dentistry (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Hermann, Péter [Hermann, Péter (Fogpótlástan), author] Department of Prosthodontics (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Gerber, Gábor [Gerber, Gábor (Idegtudományok), author] Anatómiai, Szövet- és Fejlődéstani Intézet (SU / FM / I); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Hegyi, Péter [Hegyi, Péter (Gasztroenterológia), author] Institute for Translational Medicine (UP / UPMS); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE); Mikulás, Krisztina ✉ [Mikulás, Krisztina Ágnes (Fogpótlástan), author] Department of Prosthodontics (SU / FD); Centre for Translational Medicine (SU / KSZE)

English Survey paper (Journal Article) Scientific
Published: JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 0022-3913 1097-6841 132 (5) pp. 881-889 2024
  • SJR Scopus - Oral Surgery: D1
Identifiers
Fundings:
  • (Center for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University)
Technical complication rates of standard metal-ceramic implant-supported posterior restorations are relatively high. Whether monolithic zirconia crowns represent a more successful alternative is unclear.The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of posterior monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials up to April 2023 with a follow-up time of at least 1 year. Restoration and implant survival and failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and technical complications were analyzed by 2 reviewers. Statistical analyses were conducted using the R-statistics software program. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB 2), and the certainty of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.A total of 11 out of 2030 records were identified by title and abstract, and 4 records were included after full-text analysis. The statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in MBL (MD -0.11, 95% CI: [-0.25; 0.03]), BOP (OR 0.66, 95% CI: [0.25; 1.77]), or implant failure (OR 1.30, 95% CI: [0.24; 7.08]). Monolithic zirconia presented significantly less chipping over 1 year (OR 0.17, 95% CI: [0.03; 0.99]). The chipping rate was 0% for monolithic zirconia and 7.61% for metal-ceramic. Based on a narrative review, the restoration survival rate was 97.5% in the monolithic zirconia group and 99.1% in the metal-ceramic group.Monolithic zirconia showed favorable short-term survival rates and had significantly less chipping over 1 year. Regarding MBL, BOP, and failure rates, both restoration types presented similar results at the 1-year follow-up.
Citation styles: IEEEACMAPAChicagoHarvardCSLCopyPrint
2025-04-24 18:47