Alghauli Mohammed Ahmed, Al-Gabri Redhwan Saleh, Keshk Ahmed, Mirah Mahir A, Alqutaibi Ahmed Yaseen
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Jul;37(7):1721-1739. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13471. Epub 2025 Apr 4.
The existing evidence regarding the clinical complications and survival rates associated with resin matrix ceramics (RMC) remains inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical complications, success, and survival rates of RMC restorations.
A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases in October 2024. Clinical studies evaluating the complications of RMC (polymer infiltrated ceramic network [PICN], and resin nano ceramic [RNC]) restorations were included. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools. A meta-analysis was performed using review manager, employing the inverse variance test with a fixed effects model, and results were presented as risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval, with an alpha level set at ≤ 0.05.
Twenty-one studies were included. RMC full and partial crowns exhibited higher rates of clinical complications than ceramic restorations. Laminate and occlusal veneers demonstrated comparable outcomes between RMC and lithium disilicate materials. RMC intracoronal restorations showed clinical complications similar to those of lithium disilicate inlays and onlays but demonstrated lower complications compared to direct composite restorations. The overall success and survival rates of RMC restorations were found to be dependent on the restoration size and cavity design, with poorer success and survival rates associated with full and partial coverage crowns.
Resin matrix or hybrid ceramics may not be the preferred choice for full and partial coverage restorations. However, resin matrix ceramics demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes for intracoronal restorations and veneers, showing preference over direct composite restorations. Long-term randomized clinical trials are recommended to provide further evidence.
The selection of materials is fundamental for the clinical success of restorations, ensuring prolonged, complication-free survival. It is essential to comprehend the clinical behavior of resin matrix ceramics or hybrid ceramics before their adoption in further clinical applications.
关于树脂基质陶瓷（RMC）相关的临床并发症和生存率的现有证据尚无定论。本系统评价旨在评估RMC修复体的临床并发症、成功率和生存率。
2024年10月在PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane数据库进行了全面检索。纳入评估RMC（聚合物渗透陶瓷网络[PICN]和树脂纳米陶瓷[RNC]）修复体并发症的临床研究。使用Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险。使用Review Manager进行荟萃分析，采用固定效应模型的逆方差检验，结果以风险比和95%置信区间表示，α水平设定为≤0.05。
纳入21项研究。RMC全冠和部分冠的临床并发症发生率高于陶瓷修复体。贴面和咬合面 veneers在RMC和二硅酸锂材料之间表现出相似的结果。RMC冠内修复体的临床并发症与二硅酸锂嵌体和高嵌体相似，但与直接复合树脂修复体相比并发症更低。发现RMC修复体的总体成功率和生存率取决于修复体大小和窝洞设计，全冠和部分覆盖冠的成功率和生存率较差。
树脂基质或混合陶瓷可能不是全冠和部分覆盖修复体的首选。然而，树脂基质陶瓷在冠内修复体和贴面方面显示出良好的临床效果，优于直接复合树脂修复体。建议进行长期随机临床试验以提供进一步证据。
材料的选择是修复体临床成功的基础，可确保长期无并发症的生存。在将树脂基质陶瓷或混合陶瓷应用于进一步的临床之前，了解其临床行为至关重要。
