Posterior ceramic versus metal restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:14
|
作者
Tennert, Christian [1 ]
Machado, Lazaro Suarez [1 ]
Jaeggi, Thomas [1 ]
Meyer-Lueckel, Hendrik [1 ]
Wierichs, Richard Johannes [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bern, Dept Restorat Prevent & Pediat Dent, Freiburgstr 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
关键词
Ceramics; Gold; Failure; Clinical studies; trials; Meta; -analysis; Operative dentistry; Restorative materials; Systemic reviews and evidence-based medicine; CONTROLLED CLINICAL-TRIAL; FIXED DENTAL PROSTHESES; COMPOSITE INLAYS; CROWNS; SURVIVAL; ZIRCONIA; ONLAYS; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.dental.2022.08.002
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The goal of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the long-evity of indirect adhesively-luted ceramic compared to conventionally cemented metal single tooth restorations.Data: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating indirect adhesively-luted ceramic re-storations 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.(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Academy of Dental Materials. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creative-commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:1623 / 1632
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Longevity of posterior direct versus indirect composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Tennert, Christian
    Maliakal, Christina
    Machado, Lazaro Suarez
    Jaeggi, Thomas
    Meyer-Lueckel, Hendrik
    Richard, Johannes Wierichs
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 2024, 40 (11) : e95 - e101
  • [2] Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Opdam, N. J. M.
    van de Sande, F. H.
    Bronkhorst, E.
    Cenci, M. S.
    Bottenberg, P.
    Pallesen, U.
    Gaengler, P.
    Lindberg, A.
    Huysmans, M. C. D. N. J. M.
    van Dijken, J. W.
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2014, 93 (10) : 943 - 949
  • [3] Fracture Resistance of Direct versus Indirect Restorations on Posterior Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Moussa, Carol
    Savard, Guillaume
    Rochefort, Gael
    Renaud, Matthieu
    Denis, Frederic
    Daou, Maha H.
    BIOENGINEERING-BASEL, 2024, 11 (06):
  • [4] Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Vetromilla, Bruna M.
    Opdam, Niek J.
    Leida, Ferdinan L.
    Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
    Demarco, Flavio F.
    van der Loo, Mark P. J.
    Cenci, Maximiliano S.
    Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 151 (08): : 614 - +
  • [5] Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Moraschini, Vittorio
    Fai, Cheung Ka
    Alto, Raphael Monte
    dos Santos, Gustavo Oliveira
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2015, 43 (09) : 1043 - 1050
  • [6] Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido
    Verri, Fellippo Ramos
    de Luna Gomes, Jessica Marcela
    de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
    Cruz, Ronaldo Silva
    Fernandes e Oliveira, Hiskell Francine
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 121 (06): : 879 - +
  • [7] Short versus standard implants for single-crown restorations in the posterior region: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xu, Xinxin
    Hu, Bo
    Xu, Yun
    Liu, Qin
    Ding, Huifen
    Xu, Ling
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 124 (05): : 530 - 538
  • [8] Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Angeletaki, Flora
    Gkogkos, Andreas
    Papazoglou, Efstratios
    Kloukos, Dimitrios
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2016, 53 : 12 - 21
  • [9] Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sedrez-Porto, Jose Augusto
    de Oliveira da Rosa, Wellington Luiz
    da Silva, Adriana Fernandes
    Muenchow, Eliseu Aldrighi
    Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2016, 52 : 8 - 14
  • [10] CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rodrigues, Stefani Becker
    Franken, Patricia
    Celeste, Roger Keller
    Branco Leitune, Vicente Castelo
    Collares, Fabricio Mezzomo
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH, 2019, 63 (04) : 389 - 395