ReviewDental research journal2024
Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Dental research journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytokines profile in gingival crevicular fluid of subjects wearing fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional versus digital impressions.Dental research journal · 2026Review
- Influence of Pontic Length on the Structural Integrity of Zirconia Fixed Partial Dentures (FPDs).Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Evaluating the influence of prompt formulation on the reliability and repeatability of ChatGPT in implant-supported prostheses.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implant-supported prostheses could serve as a reliable restorative option for partial edentulism. Various restorative materials have been utilized in fabricating these prostheses, impacting both esthetics and peri-implant health. The present systematic review aimed to assess the survival rate and mechanical complications of zirconia ceramic compared to metal-ceramic implant-supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). We conducted searches in online databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane up until December 2022. A risk-of-bias assessment was done for all the included studies. Data extraction was performed based on the following parameters: author, year, study design, number of implants, abutment material, age range, observation period, incidence of mechanical complications, and survival rate. This systematic review included six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies). The meta-analysis significantly favored metal-ceramic restorations regarding mechanical complications with a risk ratio (RR) value of 1.64 and
Indexed as
Identifiers
38425320PMC10899163W4391363724What 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.