ArticleCureus2026
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures: A Prospective Clinical Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The evaluation of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) has traditionally focused on clinician-centered outcomes, such as survival and technical performance. However, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide valuable insights into patients' perceptions of comfort, function, esthetics, and overall oral health-related quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate and compare patient-reported outcomes in individuals rehabilitated with metal-ceramic and all-ceramic FPDs over a one-year follow-up period. Materials and methods This prospective observational clinical study included adult patients who required posterior FPDs. Participants received either metal-ceramic or all-ceramic restorations based on routine clinical decision-making. PROMs were assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire and visual analog scales (VAS) for satisfaction assessment. Evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Clinical parameters, such as chipping, fractures, and secondary caries, were also recorded. Data were analyzed using appropriate non-parametric statistical tests, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results Both restorative groups demonstrated significant improvements in oral health-related QoL and patient satisfaction following treatment. Baseline PROMs score were comparable between the groups. At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, all-ceramic restorations showed significantly better patient-reported outcomes than metal-ceramic restorations. Intragroup analysis revealed sustained improvement over time in the all-ceramic group, whereas a partial decline in quality of life scores was observed in the metal-ceramic group at later follow-ups. Chipping was more frequently observed in the all-ceramic group, whereas the fracture rates were comparable. Conclusion Both metal-ceramic and all-ceramic FPDs effectively enhanced PROMs; however, all-ceramic restorations provided superior and more stable long-term patient satisfaction and quality of life. Incorporating PROMs into routine clinical evaluations can support patient-centered treatment planning and material selection.
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.