Cargando…

A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns

OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns (SCs). METHODS: Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomize...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pjetursson, Bjarni Elvar, Sailer, Irena, Latyshev, Andrey, Rabel, Kerstin, Kohal, Ralf‐Joachim, Karasan, Duygu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9293296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642991
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13863
_version_ 1784749593960906752
author Pjetursson, Bjarni Elvar
Sailer, Irena
Latyshev, Andrey
Rabel, Kerstin
Kohal, Ralf‐Joachim
Karasan, Duygu
author_facet Pjetursson, Bjarni Elvar
Sailer, Irena
Latyshev, Andrey
Rabel, Kerstin
Kohal, Ralf‐Joachim
Karasan, Duygu
author_sort Pjetursson, Bjarni Elvar
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns (SCs). METHODS: Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow‐up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all‐ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models. RESULTS: Forty‐nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta‐analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3‐year survival rate of veneered‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant‐supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%–99.6%). The estimated 3‐year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%–98.5%) for monolithic‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%–98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%–97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%–97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%–87.7%) for resin‐matrix‐ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant‐supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short‐term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9293296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92932962022-07-20 A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns Pjetursson, Bjarni Elvar Sailer, Irena Latyshev, Andrey Rabel, Kerstin Kohal, Ralf‐Joachim Karasan, Duygu Clin Oral Implants Res The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021 OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns (SCs). METHODS: Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow‐up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all‐ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models. RESULTS: Forty‐nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta‐analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3‐year survival rate of veneered‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant‐supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%–99.6%). The estimated 3‐year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%–98.5%) for monolithic‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%–98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%–97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%–97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%–87.7%) for resin‐matrix‐ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant‐supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short‐term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-12 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9293296/ /pubmed/34642991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13863 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
Pjetursson, Bjarni Elvar
Sailer, Irena
Latyshev, Andrey
Rabel, Kerstin
Kohal, Ralf‐Joachim
Karasan, Duygu
A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
title A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
title_full A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
title_fullStr A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
title_short A systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
title_sort systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns
topic The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9293296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642991
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13863
work_keys_str_mv AT pjeturssonbjarnielvar asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT sailerirena asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT latyshevandrey asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT rabelkerstin asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT kohalralfjoachim asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT karasanduygu asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT pjeturssonbjarnielvar systematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT sailerirena systematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT latyshevandrey systematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT rabelkerstin systematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT kohalralfjoachim systematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT karasanduygu systematicreviewandmetaanalysisevaluatingthesurvivalthefailureandthecomplicationratesofveneeredandmonolithicallceramicimplantsupportedsinglecrowns