Affiliation:
1. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology University of Iceland Reykjavik Iceland
2. Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva Geneva Switzerland
3. Department of Prosthodontics, University Center of Health Sciences University of Guadalajara Guadalajara Mexico
4. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center University of Freiburg Freiburg Germany
Abstract
AbstractObjectiveThe objectives of the study were to assess the survival, failure, and technical complication rates of implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis (iFDPs) with pontic or splinted crown (iSpC) designs in the posterior area and compare the influence of prosthetic materials and prosthetic design on the outcomes.MethodsElectronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized‐, prospective‐, and retrospective clinical trials with follow‐up time of ≥12 months, evaluating the clinical outcomes of posterior iFDPs with pontic or iSpCs. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.ResultsThirty‐two studies reporting on 42 study arms were included in the present systematic review. The meta‐analysis of the included studies indicated estimated 3‐year survival rates of 98.3% (95%CI: 95.6–99.3%) for porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal (PFM) iFDPs, 97.5% (95%CI: 95.5–98.7%) for veneered zirconia (Zr) iFDPs with pontic, 98.9% (95%CI: 96.8–99.6%) for monolithic or micro‐veneered zirconia iFDPs with pontic, and 97.0% (95%CI: 84.8–99.9%) for lithium disilicate iFDPs with pontics. The survival rates for different material combination showed no statistically significant differences. Veneered restorations, overall, showed significantly (p < .01) higher ceramic fracture and chipping rates compared with monolithic restorations. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in survival rates (98.3% [95%CI: 95.6–99.3%] vs. 99.1% [95%CI: 97.6–99.7%]) and overall complication rates between PFM iFDPs with pontic and PFM iSpCs.ConclusionsBased on the data identified by this systematic review, PFM, veneered Zr, and monolithic Zr iFDPs with pontic and iSpCs showed similarly high short‐term survival rates in the posterior area. Veneered restorations exhibit ceramic chipping more often than monolithic restorations, with the highest fracture rate reported for veneered Zr iFDPs.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献