Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 632
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META.ANALYSIS
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3

Comparison of the outcomes and complications of three-unit porcelain-fused-to-metal tooth-implant-supported prostheses with implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis


1 Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
3 Dentist, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
5 Graduate Student, Dental Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Amirhossein Fathi
Department of Prosthodontic, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezar-Jerib Ave., Box: 81746 73461, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.367902

Rights and Permissions

Background: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications of three-unit porcelain-fused-to-metal tooth-implant-supported prostheses in comparison with implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: In this review article, the electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, EBSCO, LIVIVO, and Embase were searched over the past 20 years until December 2021. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI), fixed effect model, and Mantel–Haenszel method was calculated. The meta-analysis was performed with the statistical software Stata/MP v. 16. Results: Two hundred and three studies were selected for reviewing the abstracts, from which the full texts of 16 studies were reviewed. Finally, five studies were selected. The risk ratio of prosthesis failure between the tooth-implant-supported prosthesis and the implant-supported prosthesis was RR (Risk Ratio)= 1.83 (0.79, 4.24), (P = 0.16) and for prosthesis complication, it was RR = 0.61 (0.35, 1.06), (P = 0.08). Risk ratio of implant failure between the mentioned groups was RR = 2.33 (0.84, 6.41), (P = 0.10), and for implant complications, this rate was 0.09 (RR, 0.09 95% CI − 1.30, 1.48; P = 0.90). Conclusion: The meta-analysis of the present study showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (three-unit porcelain-fused-to-metal tooth-implant-supported prosthesis and implant-supported prosthesis reconstruction) in terms of the total failure of implants and prostheses and the complication rate of implants and prostheses.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed84    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded8    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal