Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Survival and prosthetic complications of monolithic ceramic implant-supported single crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Published:December 21, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.11.013

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations have been used to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients. However, knowledge of the survival and prosthetic complications of single crowns (SCs) and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) is limited.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of monolithic ceramic implant-supported SCs and FPDs in terms of survival and prosthetic complication rates.

      Material and methods

      The systematic review was registered on the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017078568). Five electronic databases were independently searched by 2 authors for articles published until May 2022. In addition, a hand search was performed in the nonpeer-reviewed literature, specific journals, and reference lists of included articles. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed by using the R program. The risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

      Results

      Twenty-eight studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. A total of 1298 monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations (1116 SCs and 182 FPDs) were evaluated in 1193 participants, with a median observation time of 24 months (range: 12 to 72 months). Meta-analysis indicated the proportion of failures and prosthetic complication rates of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1% to 4%) for SCs. No difference was observed for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate SCs. In the FPDs, only monolithic zirconia was considered, with 1 failure reported totaling the proportion of failures of 0% (0% to 1%) and complication rates of 4% (0% to 12%). The most complications reported for both types of restorations were screw loosening, debonding, and minor chipping and were considered repairable. The included studies showed a low risk of bias and good quality.

      Conclusions

      The use of monolithic ceramic implant-supported SCs, independent of ceramic material, and monolithic zirconia implant-supported FPDs should be considered an effective and safe treatment option because of favorable short-term survival and low prosthetic complications. However, additional well-conducted studies with a longer-term follow-up and direct comparison between veneered restorations are recommended to reassess clinical performance.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bento V.A.A.
        • Gomes J.M.L.
        • Lemos C.A.A.
        • Limirio J.P.J.O.
        • Rosa C.D.D.R.D.
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.025
        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Valente N.A.
        • Strasding M.
        • Zwahlen M.
        • Liu S.
        • Sailer I.
        A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 199-214
        • Chrcanovic B.R.
        • Albrektsson T.
        • Wennerberg A.
        Reasons for failures of oral implants.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41: 443-476
        • Lops D.
        • Bressan E.
        • Chiapasco M.
        • Rossi A.
        • Romeo E.
        Zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implant prostheses after 5 years of function in posterior regions.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 281-287
        • Lemos C.A.A.
        • Verri F.R.
        • Gomes J.M.L.
        • et al.
        Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 879-886
        • Hosseini M.
        • Worsaae N.
        • Schiodt M.
        • Gotfredsen K.
        A 3-year prospective study of implant-supported, single-tooth restorations of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic materials in patients with tooth agenesis.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 1078-1087
        • Kinsel R.P.
        • Lin D.
        Retrospective analysis of porcelain failures of metal ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures supported by 729 implants in 152 patients: patient-specific and implant-specific predictors of ceramic failure.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 388-394
        • Zembic A.
        • Bosch A.
        • Jung R.E.
        • Hammerle C.H.
        • Sailer I.
        Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 384-390
        • Hamza T.A.
        • Sherif R.M.
        Fracture resistance of monolithic glass-ceramics versus bilayered zirconia-based restorations.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e259-e264
        • Zhang Y.
        • Lee J.J.
        • Srikanth R.
        • Lawn B.R.
        Edge chipping and flexural resistance of monolithic ceramics.
        Dent Mater. 2013; 29: 1201-1208
        • Worni A.
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Kolgeci L.
        • Worni M.
        • Mericske-Stern R.
        Monolithic zirconia reconstructions supported by teeth and implants: 1- to 3-year results of a case series.
        Quintessence Int. 2017; 48: 459-467
        • Spies B.C.
        • Pieralli S.
        • Vach K.
        • Kohal R.J.
        CAD/CAM-fabricated ceramic implant-supported single crowns made from lithium disilicate: final results of a 5-year prospective cohort study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19: 876-883
        • Spies B.C.
        • Patzelt S.B.
        • Vach K.
        • Kohal R.J.
        Monolithic lithium-disilicate single crowns supported by zirconia oral implants: three-year results of a prospective cohort study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1160-1168
        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Sailer I.
        • Latyshev A.
        • Rabel K.
        • Kohal R.J.
        • Karasan D.
        A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32: 254-288
        • Patzelt S.B.
        • Spies B.C.
        • Kohal R.J.
        CAD/CAM-fabricated implant-supported restorations: a systematic review.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 77-85
        • Rauch A.
        • Reich S.
        • Schierz O.
        Chair-side generated posterior monolithic lithium disilicate crowns: clinical survival after 6 years.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 2083-2089
        • Spitznagel F.A.
        • Balmer M.
        • Wiedemeier D.B.
        • Jung R.E.
        • Gierthmuehlen P.C.
        Clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by ceramic implants: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022; 33: 1-20
        • Mühlemann S.
        • Kraus R.D.
        • Hämmerle C.H.F.
        • Thoma D.S.
        Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: a systematic review.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 184-195
        • Alqutaibi A.Y.
        • Alnazzawi A.A.
        • Algabri R.
        • Aboalrejal A.N.
        • AbdElaziz M.H.
        Clinical performance of single implant-supported ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 369-376
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Thomas J.
        • Chandler J.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022).
        Cochrane, London2022
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        PLoS Medicine. 2021; 18e1003583
        • Abdulmajeed A.A.
        • Lim K.G.
        • Närhi T.O.
        • Cooper L.F.
        Complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 672-677
        • Mazza L.C.
        • Lemos C.A.A.
        • Pesqueira A.A.
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        Survival and complications of monolithic ceramic for tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.020
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • et al.
        Cochrane bias methods group; cochrane statistical methods group. The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928
        • Stang A.
        Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.
        Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25: 603-605
        • Landis J.R.
        • Koch G.G.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-171
        • Cakan U.
        • Özcan M.
        Implant-supported extra-orally cemented monolithic zirconia crowns: a prospective controlled clinical study up to 18 months in function.
        Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2022; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2029Cakan08
        • Donker V.J.J.
        • Raghoebar G.M.
        • Jensen-Louwerse C.
        • Vissink A.
        • Meijer H.J.A.
        Monolithic zirconia single tooth implant-supported restorations with CAD/CAM titanium abutments in the posterior region: a 1-year prospective case series study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022; 24: 125-132
        • Linkevicius T.
        • Alkimavicius J.
        • Linkevicius R.
        • Gineviciute E.
        • Linkeviciene L.
        Effect of ti-base abutment gingival height on maintenance of crestal bone in thick biotype patients: a randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022; 37: 320-327
        • Di Fiore A.
        • Granata S.
        • Monaco C.
        • Stellini E.
        • Yilmaz B.
        Clinical performance of posterior monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with angulated screw channels: a 3-year prospective cohort study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.043
        • Derksen W.
        • Tahmaseb A.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Randomized clinical trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw-retained posterior crowns on ti-base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One-year follow-up.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32: 962-970
        • Wolfart S.
        • Rittich A.
        • Groß K.
        • et al.
        Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: a 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32: 1484-1495
        • Cionca N.
        • Hashim D.
        • Mombelli A.
        Two-piece zirconia implants supporting all-ceramic crowns: six-year results of a prospective cohort study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32: 695-701
        • Mühlemann S.
        • Lakha T.
        • Jung R.E.
        • Hämmerle C.
        • Benic G.I.
        Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns in the molar region: 1-year results of a RCT.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 856-864
        • Lee J.
        • Lim Y.J.
        • Kim B.
        • Koo K.T.
        Early loading of mandibular molar single implants: 1 year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Materials (Basel). 2020; 13: 3912
        • Gierthmuehlen P.C.
        • Berger L.
        • Spitznagel F.A.
        Monolithic screw-retained lithium disilicate implant crowns: preliminary data of a prospective cohort study.
        Int J Prosthod. 2020; 33: 272-276
        • Wittneben J.G.
        • Gavric J.
        • Sailer I.
        • Buser D.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Clinical and esthetic outcomes of two different prosthetic workflows for implant-supported all-ceramic single crowns-3 year results of a randomized multicenter clinical trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 495-505
        • Koller M.
        • Steyer E.
        • Theisen K.
        • Stagnell S.
        • Jakse N.
        • Payer M.
        Two-piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 388-396
        • Koenig V.
        • Wulfman C.
        • Bekaert S.
        • et al.
        Clinical behavior of second-generation zirconia monolithic posterior restorations: two-year results of a prospective study with Ex vivo analyses including patients with clinical signs of bruxism.
        J Dent. 2019; 91: 103229
        • Mangano F.
        • Veronesi G.
        Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: a randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up.
        Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 5325032
        • Weigl P.
        • Saarepera K.
        • Hinrikus K.
        • Wu Y.
        • Trimpou G.
        • Lorenz J.
        Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 1067-1075
        • Cheng C.W.
        • Chien C.H.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        Randomized controlled clinical trial to compare posterior implant-supported modified monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic single crowns: one-year results.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 15-21
        • Erhan Çömlekoğlu M.
        • Nizam N.
        • Çömlekoğlu M.D.
        Immediate definitive individualized abutments reduce peri-implant bone loss: a randomized controlled split-mouth study on 16 patients.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 475-486
        • Linkevicius T.
        • Linkevicius R.
        • Alkimavicius J.
        • Linkeviciene L.
        • Andrijauskas P.
        • Puisys A.
        Influence of titanium base, lithium disilicate restoration and vertical soft tissue thickness on bone stability around triangular-shaped implants: a prospective clinical trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 716-724
      1. Cheng CW, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P. Clinical results and technical complications of posterior implant-supported modified monolithic zirconia single crowns and short-span fixed dental prostheses: a 2-year pilot study. J Prosthodont 27:108–114.

        • Joda T.
        • Ferrari M.
        • Brägger U.
        Monolithic implant-supported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital workflow: a prospective clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19: 505-511
        • Becker J.
        • John G.
        • Becker K.
        • Mainusch S.
        • Diedrichs G.
        • Schwarz F.
        Clinical performance of two-piece zirconia implants in the posterior mandible and maxilla: a prospective cohort study over 2 years.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 29-35
        • Cooper L.F.
        • Stanford C.
        • Feine J.
        • McGuire M.
        Prospective assessment of CAD/CAM zirconia abutment and lithium disilicate crown restorations: 2.4 year results.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 33-39
        • Mihali S.
        • Canjau S.
        • Bratu E.
        • Wang H.L.
        Utilization of ceramic inlays for sealing implant prostheses screw access holes: a case-control study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 1142-1149
        • Paolantoni G.
        • Marenzi G.
        • Blasi A.
        • Mignogna J.
        • Sammartino G.
        Findings of a four-year randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two-piece and one-piece zirconia abutments supporting single prosthetic restorations in maxillary anterior region.
        Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 8767845
        • Derksen W.
        • Tahmaseb A.
        • Wismeijer D.
        A Randomized Clinical Trial comparing the clinical fit of CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDP) on ti-base abutments based on digital or conventional impression techniques. One year follow-up.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 733-743
        • Pol C.W.
        • Raghoebar G.M.
        • Cune M.S.
        • Meijer H.J.
        Implant-supported three-unit fixed dental prosthesis using coded healing abutments and fabricated using a digital workflow: a 1-year prospective case series study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 33: 609-619
        • Lemos C.A.A.
        • Verri F.R.
        • Noritomi P.Y.
        • et al.
        Biomechanical evaluation of different implant-abutment connections, retention systems, and restorative materials in the implant-supported single crowns using 3D finite element.
        J Oral Implantol. 2022; 48: 194-201
        • Jung R.E.
        • Zembic A.
        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Zwahlen M.
        • Thoma D.S.
        Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 2-21
        • Calderon U.
        • Hicklin S.P.
        • Mojon P.
        • et al.
        Influence of the titanium base abutment design on monolithic zirconia multiple-unit implant fixed dental prostheses: a laboratory study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022; 37: 19-29
        • Anusavice K.J.
        Standardizing failure, success, and survival decisions in clinical studies of ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses.
        Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 102-111
        • Elshiyab S.H.
        • Nawafleh N.
        • Öchsner A.
        • George R.
        Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10: 65-72
        • De Angelis P.
        • Passarelli P.C.
        • Gasparini G.
        • Boniello R.
        • D'Amato G.
        • De Angelis S.
        Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate versus monolithic CAD-CAM zirconia for single implant-supported posterior crowns using a digital workflow: a 3-year cross-sectional retrospective study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 252-256