Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University, Inonu Boulevard No: 4, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
Odontology. 2024 Jul;112(3):751-760. doi: 10.1007/s10266-023-00878-x. Epub 2023 Dec 16.
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.
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。