Clinical Outcomes of Metal-Ceramic versus Metal-Acrylic Resin Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Nathan Estrin, Kyung Nam, Georgios E Romanos, Jamie Saragossi, Vincent J Iacono, Seyed Hossein Bassir
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of Metal-Ceramic versus Metal-Acrylic Resin Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Nathan Estrin, Kyung Nam, Georgios E Romanos, Jamie Saragossi, Vincent J Iacono, Seyed Hossein Bassir","doi":"10.11607/ijp.7592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of metal-ceramic vs metal-acrylic resin implant-supported fixed complete denture prostheses (IFCDPs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An electronic literature database search was conducted in the CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Additionally, a manual search of the literature was performed. Studies conducted in edentulous human subjects comparing clinical outcomes of metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs to those of metal-ceramic IFCDPs were included if quantitative outcomes for the following variables were reported: implant failure, prosthetic failure, incidence of peri-implantitis, incidence of peri-implant mucositis, incidence of peri-implant mucosal recession, prosthetic complications, and any patient-centered outcomes. Data from included studies were pooled to estimate effect size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies met the inclusion criteria. A quantitative analysis was possible for risk of implant failure, prosthesis failure, and incidence of peri-implantitis. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the risk of implant or prosthesis failure between the two groups. However, meta-analysis showed a significantly greater risk of developing peri-implantitis at the implant level in the metal-acrylic group when compared to the metal-ceramic group (risk difference = 0.069; 95% CI = 0.028 to 0.06; P = .001; fixed-effects model). Furthermore, descriptive analysis of the literature indicated a higher incidence of other biologic complications such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implant mucosal recession, as well as prosthetic complications such as abrasion and veneer fracture, in metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The available evidence suggests that a higher incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications, including a higher risk of peri-implantitis, are present with metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":"36 3","pages":"354–365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7592","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of metal-ceramic vs metal-acrylic resin implant-supported fixed complete denture prostheses (IFCDPs).
Materials and methods: An electronic literature database search was conducted in the CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Additionally, a manual search of the literature was performed. Studies conducted in edentulous human subjects comparing clinical outcomes of metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs to those of metal-ceramic IFCDPs were included if quantitative outcomes for the following variables were reported: implant failure, prosthetic failure, incidence of peri-implantitis, incidence of peri-implant mucositis, incidence of peri-implant mucosal recession, prosthetic complications, and any patient-centered outcomes. Data from included studies were pooled to estimate effect size.
Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. A quantitative analysis was possible for risk of implant failure, prosthesis failure, and incidence of peri-implantitis. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the risk of implant or prosthesis failure between the two groups. However, meta-analysis showed a significantly greater risk of developing peri-implantitis at the implant level in the metal-acrylic group when compared to the metal-ceramic group (risk difference = 0.069; 95% CI = 0.028 to 0.06; P = .001; fixed-effects model). Furthermore, descriptive analysis of the literature indicated a higher incidence of other biologic complications such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implant mucosal recession, as well as prosthetic complications such as abrasion and veneer fracture, in metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs.
Conclusion: The available evidence suggests that a higher incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications, including a higher risk of peri-implantitis, are present with metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs.
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP)
Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.