A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns

Pjetursson B. E.;Valente N. A.;Strasding M.;Zwahlen M.;Liu S.;Sailer I.

2018-01-01

---

Abstract

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 3 years. 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 3 years 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.