naa a22 4500 530097567 20181026074607.0 cr unu---uuuuu 181026e201810 xx s 000 0 eng 0905-7161 10.1111/clr.13306 doi (BORIS)oai:boris.unibe.ch:120651 610 ddc 360 ddc 30328190 pmid A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns [Elektronische Daten] [Bjarni E Pjetursson, Nicola A Valente, Malin Strasding, Marcel Zwahlen, Shiming Liu, Irena Sailer] publishedVersion openAccess eu-repo OBJECTIVES The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 3years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts, full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles, resulting in 35 included studies on implant-supported crowns. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8-99.1) for metal-ceramic implant supported SCs (n=4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3-99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n=912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7-91.0) of the metal-ceramic SCs (n=1,300) experienced no biological/technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n=76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6-93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metal-ceramics. The 5-year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal-ceramic, 2.8% zirconia-ceramic). Significantly (p=0.001), more zirconia-ceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metal-ceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3years follow-up time and clinical examination of the present systematic review. CONCLUSION Zirconia-ceramic implant-supported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metal-ceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the material groups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures. Pjetursson Bjarni E. joint author Valente Nicola A. joint author Strasding Malin joint author Zwahlen Marcel joint author Liu Shiming joint author Sailer Irena joint author Clinical oral implants research 29(Suppl 16), pp. 199-214 0905-7161 https://boris.unibe.ch/120651/1/Pjetursson%20ClinOralImplantsRes%202018_Review.pdf text/html WWW-Backlink auf das Repository 1 info:eu-repo/semantics/article boris PeerReviewed boris peerstatus BORIS 856 40 https://boris.unibe.ch/120651/1/Pjetursson%20ClinOralImplantsRes%202018_Review.pdf text/html WWW-Backlink auf das Repository BORIS 700 1- Pjetursson Bjarni E. joint author BORIS 700 1- Valente Nicola A. joint author BORIS 700 1- Strasding Malin joint author BORIS 700 1- Zwahlen Marcel joint author BORIS 700 1- Liu Shiming joint author BORIS 700 1- Sailer Irena joint author BORIS 773 0- Clinical oral implants research 29(Suppl 16), pp. 199-214 0905-7161 BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 BORIS BORIS BORIS info:eu-repo/semantics/article openAccess