ReviewCureus2025
Evaluating Complications, Success Rate, and Marginal Bone Loss in Cement- Versus Screw-Retained Single Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare marginal bone loss (MBL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and the incidence of complications between cement-retained and screw-retained (SR) single implant-supported zirconia crowns to provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and Lilac databases was conducted by two independent reviewers for studies published between January 2000 and March 2024. Studies evaluating the success rates and complications of single zirconia implant crowns with either cement or screw retention were included. Data on complication frequency, types, and overall success rates were extracted and analyzed. A total of 168 cement-retained and 166 SR zirconia crowns from seven studies with follow-ups ranging from 3 to 10 years were included. Meta-analysis of three to six studies per outcome indicated that SR crowns had significantly lower MBL at six months (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.63; p = 0.002), though no significant differences in MBL were found at one, three, and five years. BOP outcomes were similar between both retention types. Notably, SR restorations demonstrated a 46% reduced risk of complications compared to cement-retained ones (RR: 0.54; p = 0.02). In conclusion, SR implant-supported zirconia crowns are associated with fewer early MBL and complications. However, long-term bone loss and peri-implant mucosal health appear comparable between the two retention methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.