Cargando…

Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the failure rates and the prevalence of technical complications between full-coverage tooth-supported monolithic zirconia (MZ) and porcelain-veneered zirconia (PVZ) fixed dental prosthesis, based on a systematic literature review. METHODS: An electronic search was performed in th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shihabi, Shahed, Chrcanovic, Bruno Ramos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10560185/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37626273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4
_version_ 1785117675265982464
author Shihabi, Shahed
Chrcanovic, Bruno Ramos
author_facet Shihabi, Shahed
Chrcanovic, Bruno Ramos
author_sort Shihabi, Shahed
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the failure rates and the prevalence of technical complications between full-coverage tooth-supported monolithic zirconia (MZ) and porcelain-veneered zirconia (PVZ) fixed dental prosthesis, based on a systematic literature review. METHODS: An electronic search was performed in three databases, supplemented by hand searching. Several statistical methods were used. RESULTS: Seventy-four publications reported 6370 restorations (4264 PVZ; 2106 MZ; 8200 abutment teeth; 3549 patients), followed up until 152 months. A total of 216 prostheses failed, and survival was statistically significant different between groups. PVZ had higher occurrence of complications than MZ; the difference was especially greater for either minor or major chipping. The difference in prevalence of either minor or major chipping was statistically significant for PVZ prostheses between cementation with glass ionomer and adhesive resin cement (higher), adhesive resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC, higher), and between RMGIC (higher) and glass ionomer cement. For MZ the difference was significant only for minor chipping between RMGIC (higher) and adhesive resin cement. Abutment teeth to PVZ prostheses more often lost vitality. Decementation was not observed with RMGIC. Air abrasion did not seem to clinically decrease the decementation risk. The 5-year difference in the occurrence of minor or major chipping between MZ and PVZ prostheses was statistically significant, but nor for catastrophic fracture. CONCLUSION: Tooth-supported PVZ prostheses present higher failure and complication rates than MZ prosthesis. The difference in complications is striking when it comes to chipping. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Awareness of the outcome differences between different types of zirconia prostheses is important for clinical practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10560185
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105601852023-10-09 Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis Shihabi, Shahed Chrcanovic, Bruno Ramos Clin Oral Investig Review PURPOSE: To compare the failure rates and the prevalence of technical complications between full-coverage tooth-supported monolithic zirconia (MZ) and porcelain-veneered zirconia (PVZ) fixed dental prosthesis, based on a systematic literature review. METHODS: An electronic search was performed in three databases, supplemented by hand searching. Several statistical methods were used. RESULTS: Seventy-four publications reported 6370 restorations (4264 PVZ; 2106 MZ; 8200 abutment teeth; 3549 patients), followed up until 152 months. A total of 216 prostheses failed, and survival was statistically significant different between groups. PVZ had higher occurrence of complications than MZ; the difference was especially greater for either minor or major chipping. The difference in prevalence of either minor or major chipping was statistically significant for PVZ prostheses between cementation with glass ionomer and adhesive resin cement (higher), adhesive resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC, higher), and between RMGIC (higher) and glass ionomer cement. For MZ the difference was significant only for minor chipping between RMGIC (higher) and adhesive resin cement. Abutment teeth to PVZ prostheses more often lost vitality. Decementation was not observed with RMGIC. Air abrasion did not seem to clinically decrease the decementation risk. The 5-year difference in the occurrence of minor or major chipping between MZ and PVZ prostheses was statistically significant, but nor for catastrophic fracture. CONCLUSION: Tooth-supported PVZ prostheses present higher failure and complication rates than MZ prosthesis. The difference in complications is striking when it comes to chipping. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Awareness of the outcome differences between different types of zirconia prostheses is important for clinical practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-08-26 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10560185/ /pubmed/37626273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Shihabi, Shahed
Chrcanovic, Bruno Ramos
Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10560185/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37626273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4
work_keys_str_mv AT shihabishahed clinicaloutcomesoftoothsupportedmonolithiczirconiavsporcelainveneeredzirconiafixeddentalprosthesiswithanadditionalfocusonthecementtypeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chrcanovicbrunoramos clinicaloutcomesoftoothsupportedmonolithiczirconiavsporcelainveneeredzirconiafixeddentalprosthesiswithanadditionalfocusonthecementtypeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis