ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Prosthetic and Biological Complications of Metal-Zirconia versus Metal-Acrylic Implant-Supported Screw-Retained Complete-Arch Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Full-arch implant-supported screw-retained prostheses are widely used for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients. Conventional metal-acrylic hybrid prostheses have demonstrated acceptable clinical outcomes, however, mechanical complications, prosthetic wear, and biological issues remain concerns. Monolithic zirconia prostheses with a metallic substructure have been proposed as an alternative, potentially improving long-term clinical performance. Material and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following predefined eligibility criteria. A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and Epistemonikos databases was performed for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Non-randomized clinical studies with a minimum follow-up of 1 year comparing full-arch implant-supported screw-retained metal-zirconia prostheses with metal-acrylic prostheses were included. Fully monolithic zirconia restorations, partial fixed prostheses, and non-full-arch rehabilitations were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE approach. Quantitative synthesis was conducted when appropriate. Results: Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with eleven included in the meta-analysis. Metal-zirconia prostheses showed significantly lower prosthetic wear (RR=0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) and a reduced risk of peri-implantitis (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96). Marginal bone loss favored metal-zirconia prostheses (SMD=0.36). Trends toward improved prosthesis survival (RR = 1.05) and reduced prosthesis loss (RR = 0.09) were observed. No significant differences were found regarding implant survival, framework fractures, esthetics, or speech. Most studies exhibited moderate to critical risk of bias, mainly due to confounding factors. Conclusions: Within the limitations of predominantly non-randomized evidence, metal-zirconia implant-supported screw-retained complete-arch prostheses demonstrate a more favorable clinical profile than metal-acrylic prostheses, particularly in terms of prosthetic wear, peri-implantitis, and marginal bone loss. Although overall survival rates were comparable, trends toward improved prosthesis longevity were observed. Well-designed randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm these findings.
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.