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

Amirhossein Fathi; Ramin Atash; Elmira Fardi; Mahsa Nili Ahmadabadi; Sara Hashemi

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

Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2023 Jan 18:20:3. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Amirhossein Fathi¹, Ramin Atash², Elmira Fardi³, Mahsa Nili Ahmadabadi⁴, Sara Hashemi⁵

Affiliations

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.

PMID: 36820133
PMCID: PMC9937935

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Dental Prosthesis; meta-analysis; systematic review.

Publication types

Review