• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

磨牙区单单位金属陶瓷和整体氧化锆修复体的骨折强度比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparison of the fracture strengths of single-unit metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconium restorations in the molar region: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University, Inonu Boulevard No: 4, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.

出版信息

Odontology. 2024 Jul;112(3):751-760. doi: 10.1007/s10266-023-00878-x. Epub 2023 Dec 16.

DOI:10.1007/s10266-023-00878-x
PMID:38103151
Abstract

Despite the success of monolithic zirconia restorations (MZ), metal-ceramic restorations (MC) are still considered the gold standard for fixed prosthetics in the posterior region. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the fracture strengths of single-unit MC and MZ in the molar region. This review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA, 2020) statement. All articles were searched from the PubMed and Web of Science databases until November 18, 2022. All in vitro studies evaluating the fracture strengths of MC and MZ were also included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program, with a significance level of 0.05. Out of 753 studies, five were selected. The fracture strengths of MZ and MC did not show any statistically significant difference for both tooth (95% CI - 1.589: 2.118, p = 0.779, z = 0.280) and implant (95% CI - 2.215: 2.191, p = 0.992 z = - 0.010) supported restorations. However, different abutment materials (p < 0.001) and aging treatments (p < 0.001) in tooth-supported restorations displayed a significant statistical difference. Additionally, a significant difference was also observed in subgroup analysis considering different cements (p = 0.001) and load speeds (p = 0.001) in implant-supported restorations. Fracture strengths of MZ and MC did not show a significant statistical difference in implant or tooth-supported single-unit posterior restorations. MZ may be a suitable alternative to MC in single-unit posterior restorations. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the included studies were in vitro.

摘要

尽管整体氧化锆修复体(MZ)取得了成功,但金属陶瓷修复体(MC)仍被认为是后牙区固定义齿的金标准。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较磨牙区单单位 MC 和 MZ 的断裂强度。本综述基于系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA,2020 年)声明。所有文章均从 PubMed 和 Web of Science 数据库中搜索,截至 2022 年 11 月 18 日。还包括评估 MC 和 MZ 断裂强度的所有体外研究。使用 Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 程序进行统计分析,显著性水平为 0.05。在 753 项研究中,有 5 项被选中。MZ 和 MC 的断裂强度对于牙支持修复体(95%CI-1.589:2.118,p=0.779,z=0.280)和种植体支持修复体(95%CI-2.215:2.191,p=0.992 z=-0.010)均无统计学显著差异。然而,牙支持修复体中的不同基台材料(p<0.001)和老化处理(p<0.001)显示出显著的统计学差异。此外,在考虑不同粘结剂(p=0.001)和加载速度(p=0.001)的种植体支持修复体的亚组分析中也观察到显著差异。在种植体或牙支持的单个后牙修复体中,MZ 和 MC 的断裂强度无显著统计学差异。MZ 可能是单个后牙修复的替代 MC 的合适选择。由于纳入的研究是体外研究,因此应谨慎解释结果。

相似文献

1
Comparison of the fracture strengths of single-unit metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconium restorations in the molar region: a systematic review and meta-analysis.磨牙区单单位金属陶瓷和整体氧化锆修复体的骨折强度比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Odontology. 2024 Jul;112(3):751-760. doi: 10.1007/s10266-023-00878-x. Epub 2023 Dec 16.
2
Metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations.用于固定义齿修复的无金属材料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 20;12(12):CD009606. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2.
3
Zirconium dioxide based dental restorations. Studies on clinical performance and fracture behaviour.基于二氧化锆的牙科修复体。临床性能和断裂行为的研究。
Swed Dent J Suppl. 2011(213):9-84.
4
Fracture load of metal-ceramic, monolithic, and bi-layered zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses after thermo-mechanical cycling.热机械循环后金属陶瓷、整体式和双层氧化锆基后固定牙科修复体的断裂负荷。
J Dent. 2018 Jun;73:97-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.012. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
5
A 1-year randomised controlled trial comparing zirconia versus metal-ceramic implant supported single-tooth restorations.一项为期1年的随机对照试验,比较氧化锆与金属陶瓷种植体支持的单颗牙修复体。
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011 Winter;4(4):347-61.
6
Effect of Thermomechanical and Static Loading on the Load to Fracture of Metal-Ceramic, Monolithic, and Veneered Zirconia Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures.热机械和静态加载对金属陶瓷、整体式和贴面氧化锆后牙固定局部义齿的断裂负荷的影响。
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):171-178. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13008. Epub 2019 Jan 1.
7
Features of fracture of prosthetic tooth-endocrown constructions by means of acoustic emission analysis.通过声发射分析研究假牙-内冠结构骨折的特征。
Dent Mater. 2018 Mar;34(3):e46-e55. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.01.023.
8
Fracture mode during cyclic loading of implant-supported single-tooth restorations.种植体支持的单牙修复体在循环加载下的断裂模式。
J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Aug;108(2):74-83. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60110-3.
9
A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses.氧化锆陶瓷-陶瓷和金属-陶瓷多单位固定义齿的存活率和并发症发生率的系统评价。
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:184-198. doi: 10.1111/clr.13277.
10
Survival, technical and biological outcome of fixed tooth- and implant-supported restorations: A retrospective analysis of a patient cohort treated in an undergraduate dental education program.固定牙和种植体支持修复的生存、技术和生物学结果:在本科牙科教育计划中治疗的患者队列的回顾性分析。
J Dent. 2024 Nov;150:105358. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105358. Epub 2024 Sep 24.

本文引用的文献

1
Current classification of zirconia in dentistry: an updated review.当前牙科用氧化锆的分类:更新综述。
PeerJ. 2023 Jul 14;11:e15669. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15669. eCollection 2023.
2
Comparative Assessment of the Functional Parameters for Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Teeth Restorations in Prosthetic Dentistry-A Literature Review.口腔修复学中金属陶瓷与全陶瓷牙齿修复体功能参数的比较评估——文献综述
Biology (Basel). 2022 Apr 5;11(4):556. doi: 10.3390/biology11040556.
3
Revolution of Current Dental Zirconia: A Comprehensive Review.当前牙科氧化锆的革命:全面综述。
Molecules. 2022 Mar 4;27(5):1699. doi: 10.3390/molecules27051699.
4
Is the bond strength of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate lower than that of lithium disilicate? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.氧化锆增强型硅酸锂的粘结强度是否低于二硅酸锂?——系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Prosthodont Res. 2022 Oct 7;66(4):530-537. doi: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00112. Epub 2021 Dec 1.
5
Comparison of the Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode of Contemporary Restorative Materials to Overcome the Offset of Mandibular Implant-Supported, Cement-Retained Crowns.当代修复材料的抗折性和折裂模式比较,以克服下颌种植体支持的粘结固位冠的偏移
Materials (Basel). 2021 Aug 26;14(17):4838. doi: 10.3390/ma14174838.
6
Influence of the dental implant number and load direction on stress distribution in a 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis.种植体数量和负载方向对 3 单位种植体支持固定义齿的应力分布的影响。
Dent Med Probl. 2021 Jan-Mar;58(1):69-74. doi: 10.17219/dmp/130847.
7
Fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars restored with different post systems and metal-ceramic or monolithic zirconia crowns.不同桩核系统及金属烤瓷或全氧化锆冠修复的根管治疗前磨牙的抗折强度。
Dent Mater J. 2021 May 29;40(3):606-614. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2020-223. Epub 2021 Jan 15.
8
Long-term chipping and failure rates of implant-supported and combined tooth-implant-supported metal-ceramic and ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A cohort study.种植体支持和联合牙种植体支持的金属陶瓷和陶瓷固定修复体的长期崩瓷和失败率:一项队列研究。
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Aug;126(2):196-203. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.020. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
9
Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns in the molar region: 1-year results of a RCT.CAD-CAM 整体氧化锆与金属烤瓷熔附冠在磨牙区的修复效果和临床性能:一项 RCT 的 1 年结果。
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Sep;31(9):856-864. doi: 10.1111/clr.13631. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
10
Are Metal-Free Monolithic Crowns the Present of Prosthesis? Study of Mechanical Behaviour.无金属整体冠是修复体的未来吗?力学行为研究。
Materials (Basel). 2019 Nov 7;12(22):3663. doi: 10.3390/ma12223663.