Title: 0985 - All-ceramic Versus Metal-ceramic Implant-supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Cleidiel A. Lemos (Presenter)
UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
jéssica gomes, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
Victor de Souza Batista, UNESP, Univ Estadual Paulista
Ronaldo Cruz, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
Hiskell Fernandes e Oliveira, Unesp - University Estadual Paulista
Caroline de Mello, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
Fellippo Verri, State University of Sao Paulo
Eduardo Pellizzer, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
Objectives: The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer the PICO question: “Do patients that received all-ceramic implant-supported prostheses show similar complications (mechanical and biological) rates, prostheses survival, and marginal bone loss as metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses?”.
Methods: Meta-analyses of complications rates, prostheses survival and marginal bone loss were performed for the included studies. Study eligibility criteria included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or prospective, (2) only implant-supported prostheses (3) direct comparison between all-ceramic and metal-ceramic (4) publications in English language. A comprehensive search strategy was designed to identify published studies on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases up to January 2018.
Results: The search identified 1196 references. Eleven studies (seven RCTs and four prospective studies) were included, with a total of 400 patients (mean age, 38.11 years), who had received a total of 582 restorations (272 all-ceramic restorations and 310 metal-ceramic restorations). Quantitative analysis found no significant difference between all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations in terms of mechanical complications (P=0.42; RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.86). Regarding biological complications also observed no significant differences between all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=0.08; RR: 1.77; 95% CI: 0.94 to 3.33). The assessed studies showed that 8 prostheses had failed, comprising 5 all-ceramic restorations (1.83%) and 3 meta-ceramic restorations (0.97%). No difference between all-ceramic and metal-ceramic was observed in terms of prostheses survival (P=0.71; RR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.37 to 4.39). In addition, marginal bone loss present similar results for both restorations (P=0.23; MD: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.02).
Conclusions: Thus, the current meta-analysis indicate that all-ceramic implant-supported prostheses have similar clinical behavior compared to metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses.
This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source:
São Paulo Research Foundation / FAPESP - Grant #2015/24442-8
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: None