AIM: The impact of prosthetic material selection on implant survival is not clear. The current criteria for choosing a prosthetic material seem to be based on clinician preferences. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of restorative materials on the mid- and long-term survival of implants supporting single crowns and fixed partial dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hand and MEDLINE searches were performed to identify relevant literature for single crowns (SC) and fixed partial dentures (FPD). Further inclusion criteria were a mean follow-up period of at least 3 years, the inclusion of at least 10 patients in a relevant study cohort, and a clear description of prosthesis type and prosthetic material. RESULTS: A total of 63 studies for the SC group and 11 studies for the FPD group were included. Full arch restorations were not included. The materials utilised in the SC group were metal-ceramic (precious and non-precious), lithium-disilicate, veneered zirconia, veneered alumina, and nanoceramics. The materials used in the FPD group were metal-ceramic (precious), veneered titanium, metal-resin (precious), and veneered zirconia. No significant impact on the prosthetic material relating to mid- or long-term implant survival was identified. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the survival rates of the dental prostheses made from different materials (SC and FPD group). Single crowns made of nanoceramics showed a higher risk for decementation relative to other materials (0.80, 95% CI [0.67; 0.89]; P < 0.0001), whereas metal-resin FPDs showed a higher risk for chipping (0.36, 95% CI [0.23; 0.52]; P = 0.0072). CONCLUSION: The current evidence suggests that prosthetic material selection has no influence on mid- and long-term survival of implants restored with single crowns and fixed partial dentures. Similarly, the prosthetic material seems to have no significant impact on prosthetic survival rates. Further research is required to provide more evidence regarding the impact of the prosthetic material on long-term outcome. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
AIM: The impact of prosthetic material selection on implant survival is not clear. The current criteria for choosing a prosthetic material seem to be based on clinician preferences. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of restorative materials on the mid- and long-term survival of implants supporting single crowns and fixed partial dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hand and MEDLINE searches were performed to identify relevant literature for single crowns (SC) and fixed partial dentures (FPD). Further inclusion criteria were a mean follow-up period of at least 3 years, the inclusion of at least 10 patients in a relevant study cohort, and a clear description of prosthesis type and prosthetic material. RESULTS: A total of 63 studies for the SC group and 11 studies for the FPD group were included. Full arch restorations were not included. The materials utilised in the SC group were metal-ceramic (precious and non-precious), lithium-disilicate, veneered zirconia, veneered alumina, and nanoceramics. The materials used in the FPD group were metal-ceramic (precious), veneered titanium, metal-resin (precious), and veneered zirconia. No significant impact on the prosthetic material relating to mid- or long-term implant survival was identified. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the survival rates of the dental prostheses made from different materials (SC and FPD group). Single crowns made of nanoceramics showed a higher risk for decementation relative to other materials (0.80, 95% CI [0.67; 0.89]; P < 0.0001), whereas metal-resin FPDs showed a higher risk for chipping (0.36, 95% CI [0.23; 0.52]; P = 0.0072). CONCLUSION: The current evidence suggests that prosthetic material selection has no influence on mid- and long-term survival of implants restored with single crowns and fixed partial dentures. Similarly, the prosthetic material seems to have no significant impact on prosthetic survival rates. Further research is required to provide more evidence regarding the impact of the prosthetic material on long-term outcome. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Authors: Pedro Molinero-Mourelle; Rocio Cascos-Sanchez; Burak Yilmaz; Walter Yu Hang Lam; Edmond Ho Nang Pow; Jaime Del Río Highsmith; Miguel Gómez-Polo Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.623