ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2026
Influence of Prosthetic Material Type on the Survival of Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of prosthetic material type on the survival of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses by comparing metal-ceramic, all-ceramic, and zirconia restorations, as well as the associated technical and biological complications. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Wiley Online Library databases for the period 2015-2026. The search strategy was based on keywords related to fixed dental prostheses. Seventeen studies were included after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis of the data was performed owing to the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Results: Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Metal-ceramic restorations showed high survival rates, reaching 100% at 5 and 10 years in some studies. All-ceramic restorations demonstrated survival rates ranging from 88% to 100%, with excellent esthetic performance but mechanical variability depending on the material. Zirconia restorations showed variable survival rates, ranging from 71% to over 100%, depending on the study and follow-up duration, with a higher frequency of technical complications, particularly chipping of the veneering ceramic in layered restorations. Conclusion: Metal-ceramic restorations are a benchmark for clinical reliability. All-ceramic and zirconia restorations are effective alternatives, particularly when high esthetic demands are involved. Material selection should be individualized and based on biomechanical constraints, esthetic requirements, and patient-specific characteristics to optimize the long-term clinical outcomes.
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.