Search

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the clinical performance of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in comparison to metal-ceramic (MC) FDPs., Methods: A comprehensive search on MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus up to June 2024 was conducted. Studies that compared the success, survival and complication rates between zirconia based FDPs and MC FDPs were eligible for inclusion., Results: Thirty-one articles were identified, of which 22 were included for systematic review and 7 RCTs were included for meta-analysis. 10, 9 and 3 studies were classified to mean follow-up ≤ 5 years, 5 years < mean Follow-up ≤ 10 years, mean Follow-up >10 years, respectively. In the pooled analysis, 180 bilaminar zirconia (ZC) FDPs and 206 MC FDPs were included. ZC FDPs were significantly associated with more failures (RR=3.64, p = 0.009) and more Ceramic Chipping (RR=2.92, p < 0.0001) when compared to MC FDPs. Higher risks of Framework Fracture (RR=4.57, p = 0.18), Loss of Retention (RR=4.79, p = 0.17), Secondary Caries (RR=1.25, p = 0.68), Endodontic complications (RR=1.30, p = 0.74) and Marginal Integrity (RR=1.07, p = 0.88) were also found in ZC FDPs when compared to those of MC FDPs, but with no statistical difference., Conclusion: The current evidence continues to support the preference for traditional MC FDPs over ZC FDPs. Studies indicate that ZC FDPs have higher failure rates and more complications compared to MC FDPs, with ceramic chipping being a significant concern. There is lack of long term (>10 years follow-up) evidence of the clinical performance of ZC FDPs and monolithic zirconia FDPs., Clinical Significance: The study suggests that despite the growing popularity of zirconia, evidence shows MC FDPs may still be considered preferable to ZC FDPs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This study did not receive any grants from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)