Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Statement of problem There is insufficient evidence to recommend the restorative material for implant-supported prostheses. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies that compared ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations for implant-supported prostheses (within the same study to avoid indirect comparison) in terms of the mechanical and biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rate, and marginal bone loss. Material and methods Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search in databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for articles indexed until March 31, 2018. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and methods were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The focused question was “Do ceramic restorations have mechanical/biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rates, and marginal bone loss similar to those of metal-ceramic restorations?” Results The search identified 949 references. The interinvestigator agreement using kappa values was 0.87 for PubMed/MEDLINE, 0.93 for Scopus, and 1.0 for the Cochrane Library. After analysis, 12 studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The mechanical complication rate did not differ between ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=.89), independent of the type of prostheses (single crown: P=.63; fixed partial denture: P=.65). The biological complication rate was also not significantly different between ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=.21). The prosthesis survival rate showed no significant differences between the 2 types of restorations (P=.56). Marginal bone loss was also similar for both types of restorations (P=.12). Conclusions This systematic review indicated that ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses have similar mechanical and biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rates, and marginal bone loss. Thus, both treatments are appropriate options for long-term rehabilitation treatment.