Posterior ceramic versus metal restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
October 2022
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Author
Suarèz Manchado, Lazàro | |
Subject(s)
Series
Dental materials
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
0109-5641
Publisher
Elsevier
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
36038401
Uncontrolled Keywords
Description
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the longevity of indirect adhesively-luted ceramic compared to conventionally cemented metal single tooth restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating indirect adhesively-luted ceramic restorations compared to metal or metal-based cemented restorations in permanent posterior teeth.
SOURCES
Three electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane) and Embase) were screened. No language or time restrictions were applied. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were done in duplicate. Risk of Bias and level of evidence was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and Grade Profiler 3.6.
RESULTS
A total of 3056 articles were found by electronic databases. Finally, four RCTs were selected. Overall, 443 restorations of which 212 were adhesively-luted ceramic restorations and 231 conventionally cemented metal restorations have been placed in 314 patients (age: 22-72 years). The highest annual failure rates were found for ceramic restorations ranging from 2.1% to 5.6%. Lower annual failure rates were found for metal (gold) restorations ranging from 0% to 2.1%. Meta-analysis could be performed for adhesively-luted ceramic vs. conventionally cemented metal restorations. Conventionally cemented metal restoration showed a significantly lower failure rate than adhesively-luted ceramic ones (visual-tactile assessment: Risk Ratio (RR)[95%CI]=0.31[0.16,0.57], low level of evidence). Furthermore, all studies showed a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Conventionally cemented metal restorations revealed significantly lower failure rates compared to adhesively-luted ceramic ones, although the selected sample was small and with medium follow-up periods with high risks of bias.
The goal of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the longevity of indirect adhesively-luted ceramic compared to conventionally cemented metal single tooth restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating indirect adhesively-luted ceramic restorations compared to metal or metal-based cemented restorations in permanent posterior teeth.
SOURCES
Three electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane) and Embase) were screened. No language or time restrictions were applied. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were done in duplicate. Risk of Bias and level of evidence was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and Grade Profiler 3.6.
RESULTS
A total of 3056 articles were found by electronic databases. Finally, four RCTs were selected. Overall, 443 restorations of which 212 were adhesively-luted ceramic restorations and 231 conventionally cemented metal restorations have been placed in 314 patients (age: 22-72 years). The highest annual failure rates were found for ceramic restorations ranging from 2.1% to 5.6%. Lower annual failure rates were found for metal (gold) restorations ranging from 0% to 2.1%. Meta-analysis could be performed for adhesively-luted ceramic vs. conventionally cemented metal restorations. Conventionally cemented metal restoration showed a significantly lower failure rate than adhesively-luted ceramic ones (visual-tactile assessment: Risk Ratio (RR)[95%CI]=0.31[0.16,0.57], low level of evidence). Furthermore, all studies showed a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Conventionally cemented metal restorations revealed significantly lower failure rates compared to adhesively-luted ceramic ones, although the selected sample was small and with medium follow-up periods with high risks of bias.
File(s)
| File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-s2.0-S0109564122002421-main.pdf | text | Adobe PDF | 3.06 MB | published |