We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Oral Implantology



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 10 (2017), Supplement 1     22. Sep. 2017
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 10 (2017), Supplement 1  (22.09.2017)

Supplement, Page 47-65, PubMed:28944368

Impact of prosthetic material on mid- and long-term outcome of dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abou-Ayash, Samir / Strasding, Malin / Rücker, Gerta / Att, Wael
Aim: The impact of prosthetic material selection on implant survival is not clear. The current criteria for choosing a prosthetic material seem to be based on clinician preferences. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of restorative materials on the mid- and long-term survival of implants supporting single crowns and fixed partial dentures.
Materials and methods: Hand and MEDLINE searches were performed to identify relevant literature for single crowns (SC) and fixed partial dentures (FPD). Further inclusion criteria were a mean follow-up period of at least 3 years, the inclusion of at least 10 patients in a relevant study cohort, and a clear description of prosthesis type and prosthetic material.
Results: A total of 63 studies for the SC group and 11 studies for the FPD group were included. Full arch restorations were not included. The materials utilised in the SC group were metal-ceramic (precious and non-precious), lithium-disilicate, veneered zirconia, veneered alumina, and nanoceramics. The materials used in the FPD group were metal-ceramic (precious), veneered titanium, metal-resin (precious), and veneered zirconia. No significant impact on the prosthetic material relating to mid- or long-term implant survival was identified. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the survival rates of the dental prostheses made from different materials (SC and FPD group). Single crowns made of nanoceramics showed a higher risk for decementation relative to other materials (0.80, 95% CI [0.67; 0.89]; P < 0.0001), whereas metal-resin FPDs showed a higher risk for chipping (0.36, 95% CI [0.23; 0.52]; P = 0.0072).
Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that prosthetic material selection has no influence on mid- and long-term survival of implants restored with single crowns and fixed partial dentures. Similarly, the prosthetic material seems to have no significant impact on prosthetic survival rates. Further research is required to provide more evidence regarding the impact of the prosthetic material on long-term outcome.

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Keywords: fixed partial dentures, implants, material selection, meta-analysis, single crowns, systematic review