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

Abstract

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.

Investigation of the Damping Capabilities of Different Resin-Based CAD/CAM Restorative Materials

“…Hence, the only way for ceramic CRMs to cope with potential excessive stresses is to elastically (VB: 97.5% = 975/1000 × 100; Figure 4 ) transfer this impact energy to the surrounding structures. These structures then have to be able to cope with this challenge or self-destruct, as previously demonstrated by VB [ 21 ] and clinically observed on zirconia implants [ 38 ] restored with single crowns made of feldspathic ceramics [ 39 ].…”

From Bench to Bedside in Precision Medicine: Diabetes Mellitus and Peri-Implantitis Clinical Indices with a Short-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The success rates of dental implants, according to the latest systematic reviews, are around 97.5% with a three-year follow-up period [1]. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors that can negatively affect the short and long-term survival of implants, including smoking [2,3], poor oral hygiene [4], periodontal disease [5,6], and local/systemic diseases such as diabetes [7,8] or osteoporosis [9][10][11].…”

Multilayer Super-Translucent Zirconia for Chairside Fabrication of a Monolithic Posterior Crown

“…Omission of ceramic veneering reduces the risk of fractures in the veneering ceramics to a great extent ( Figure 1 ). Existing clinical data show a significantly reduced technical complication rate in the posterior region in comparison to veneered restorations made of zirconia [ 3 – 5 ]. So far, the use of zirconia ceramic materials for the chairside fabrication of monolithic crowns and FPDs was not considered reasonable due to the comparatively long sintering times [ 6 , 7 ].…”