Evaluating the clinical behavior of veneered zirconia in comparison with monolithic zirconia complete arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2023
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Elsevier
Citations
Exportar
Citation
: Sara Martakoush-Saleh, Angel-Orión Salgado-Peralvo, Juan-Francisco Peña-Cardelles, Naresh Kewalramani and German O. Gallucci, Evaluating the clinical behavior of veneered zirconia in comparison with monolithic zirconia complete arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, (2023) doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.07.021
Abstract
Statement of problem: Because the use of zirconia in dentistry is relatively new, the number of published studies on the subject is scarce, even though material selection is an important factor in clinical performance. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the impact of the prosthetic material, framework design, veneering material, and manufacturing process is required.
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the survival and success rates of feldspathic porcelain veneered zirconia (VZir) in comparison with monolithic zirconia (MZir) complete arch implant-supported prostheses (CAISPs). A secondary objective was to assess the influence of the type of loading, the presence or absence of a cantilever, the type of zirconia used, the location, and the opposing arch on complications rates and patient satisfaction.
Material and methods: An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey was carried out. The criteria described in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement were used. The search was restricted from January 2000 to January 2022.
Results: The systematic search resulted in 20 articles that met the established criteria. In total, 751 patients (VZir=302; MZir=449) with 3038 CAISPs (VZir=368; MZir=2670) were analyzed. Higher prosthetic survival and success rates were found in MZir compared with VZir CAISPs (100% and 95.45%, respectively). The meta-analysis found significantly fewer complications related to MZir (9.4% [4.8%-14.1%]) compared with VZir (33.7% [17.5%-49.9%]).
Conclusions: Based on the findings of this systematic review, MZir CAISPs had higher survival and success rates than VZir CAISPs, with significantly fewer prosthetic complications. The influence of factors such as the type of functional loading, the presence of a cantilever, the material used in the prosthodontic workflow, the location of the CAISP, and the type of antagonist arch on the performance of Zir CAISPs remains unclear.