Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Implant-supported prostheses could serve as a reliable restorative option for partial edentulism. Various restorative materials have been utilized in fabricating these prostheses, impacting both esthetics and peri-implant health. The present systematic review aimed to assess the survival rate and mechanical complications of zirconia ceramic compared to metal-ceramic implant-supported multiunit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). We conducted searches in online databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane up until December 2022. A risk-of-bias assessment was done for all the included studies. Data extraction was performed based on the following parameters: author, year, study design, number of implants, abutment material, age range, observation period, incidence of mechanical complications, and survival rate. This systematic review included six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies). The meta-analysis significantly favored metal-ceramic restorations regarding mechanical complications with a risk ratio (RR) value of 1.64 and P = 0.001. Meta-analysis showed no difference in metal-ceramic FDPs in prostheses survival rate (P = 0.63; RR: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.52–3.37; heterogeneity: P = 0.65; I2: 0%). While metal-ceramic multiunit implant-supported prostheses exhibited fewer mechanical complications compared to zirconia-ceramic prostheses, there was no significant difference in terms of prosthesis survival rate between the two. Hence, both treatments appear to be viable options for long-term implant-supported prostheses.