Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34665900›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral implants research2022

Clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by ceramic implants: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

Frank Akito Spitznagel, Marc Balmer, Daniel B Wiedemeier, Ronald Ernst Jung, Petra Christine Gierthmuehlen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral implants research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Frank Akito SpitznagelDepartment of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5535-2108
Marc BalmerClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0637-8314
Daniel B WiedemeierStatistical Services, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8997-700X
Ronald Ernst JungClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-1320
Petra Christine GierthmuehlenDepartment of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4837-2546
University of Zurich · CHHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. MATERIALS AND

methodsBased on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.

resultsEight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.

conclusionsDue to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Restoration FailureCeramicsCrownsDental PorcelainDental Prosthesis DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedHumansMetal Ceramic AlloysZirconiumDental ImplantsDental PorcelainMetal Ceramic AlloysZirconiumceramicsdental implantsimplant-supported dental prosthesismeta-analysissurvival analysissystematic reviewtreatment outcomezirconia

Identifiers

PMID34665900
PMCPMC9297865
OpenAlexW3206485749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.