SynthesisOdontology2024
Comparison of the fracture strengths of single-unit metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconium restorations in the molar region: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Odontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the success of monolithic zirconia restorations (MZ), metal-ceramic restorations (MC) are still considered the gold standard for fixed prosthetics in the posterior region. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the fracture strengths of single-unit MC and MZ in the molar region. This review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA, 2020) statement. All articles were searched from the PubMed and Web of Science databases until November 18, 2022. All in vitro studies evaluating the fracture strengths of MC and MZ were also included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program, with a significance level of 0.05. Out of 753 studies, five were selected. The fracture strengths of MZ and MC did not show any statistically significant difference for both tooth (95% CI - 1.589: 2.118, p = 0.779, z = 0.280) and implant (95% CI - 2.215: 2.191, p = 0.992 z = - 0.010) supported restorations. However, different abutment materials (p < 0.001) and aging treatments (p < 0.001) in tooth-supported restorations displayed a significant statistical difference. Additionally, a significant difference was also observed in subgroup analysis considering different cements (p = 0.001) and load speeds (p = 0.001) in implant-supported restorations. Fracture strengths of MZ and MC did not show a significant statistical difference in implant or tooth-supported single-unit posterior restorations. MZ may be a suitable alternative to MC in single-unit posterior restorations. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the included studies were in vitro.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38103151What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.