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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |