Search

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of metal-ceramic vs metal-acrylic resin implant-supported fixed complete denture prostheses (IFCDPs)., Materials and Methods: An electronic literature database search was conducted in the CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Additionally, a manual search of the literature was performed. Studies conducted in edentulous human subjects comparing clinical outcomes of metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs to those of metal-ceramic IFCDPs were included if quantitative outcomes for the following variables were reported: implant failure, prosthetic failure, incidence of peri-implantitis, incidence of peri-implant mucositis, incidence of peri-implant mucosal recession, prosthetic complications, and any patient-centered outcomes. Data from included studies were pooled to estimate effect size., Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. A quantitative analysis was possible for risk of implant failure, prosthesis failure, and incidence of peri-implantitis. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the risk of implant or prosthesis failure between the two groups. However, meta-analysis showed a significantly greater risk of developing peri-implantitis at the implant level in the metal-acrylic group when compared to the metal-ceramic group (risk difference = 0.069; 95% CI = 0.028 to 0.06; P = .001; fixed-effects model). Furthermore, descriptive analysis of the literature indicated a higher incidence of other biologic complications such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implant mucosal recession, as well as prosthetic complications such as abrasion and veneer fracture, in metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs., Conclusion: The available evidence suggests that a higher incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications, including a higher risk of peri-implantitis, are present with metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs.