Comparison of the outcomes and complications of three‑unit porcelain‑fused‑to‑metal tooth‑implant‑supported prostheses with implant‑supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications of three‑unit porcelain‑fused‑to‑metal tooth‑implant‑supported prostheses in comparison with implant‑supported prostheses.

In this review article, the electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, EBSCO, LIVIVO, and Embase were searched over the past 20 years until December 2021. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI), fixed effect model, and Mantel–Haenszel method was calculated. The meta‑analysis was performed with the statistical software Stata/MP v. 16.

Two hundred and three studies were selected for reviewing the abstracts, from which the full texts of 16 studies were reviewed. Finally, five studies were selected. The risk ratio of prosthesis failure between the tooth‑implant‑supported prosthesis and the implant‑supported prosthesis was RR (Risk Ratio)= 1.83 (0.79, 4.24), (P = 0.16) and for prosthesis complication, it was RR = 0.61 (0.35, 1.06), (P = 0.08). Risk ratio of implant failure between the mentioned groups was RR = 2.33 (0.84, 6.41), (P = 0.10), and for implant complications, this rate was 0.09 (RR, 0.09 95% CI − 1.30, 1.48; P = 0.90).

The meta‑analysis of the present study showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (three‑unit porcelain‑fused‑to‑metal tooth‑implant‑supported prosthesis and implant‑supported prosthesis reconstruction) in terms of the total failure of implants and prostheses and the complication rate of implants and prostheses.