Pétursson, Bjarni ElvarSailer, IrenaLatyshev, AndreyRabel, KerstinKohal, Ralf JoachimKarasan, Duygu2025-11-202025-11-202021-10Pétursson, B E, Sailer, I, Latyshev, A, Rabel, K, Kohal, R J & Karasan, D 2021, 'A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns', Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 32 Suppl 21, no. S21, pp. 254-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.138630905-7161420678092351b5e6-b456-445a-a400-8eb4a7140dba8511688136934642991https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/6480Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). METHODS: Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all-ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models. RESULTS: Forty-nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3-year survival rate of veneered-reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%-99.6%). The estimated 3-year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%-98.5%) for monolithic-reinforced glass-ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%-98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%-97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%-97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%-87.7%) for resin-matrix-ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant-supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short-term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.351284215254-288eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessbiologicalcomplicationsfixed dental prosthesesimplant crownmeta-analysismonolithicsuccesssurvivalsystematic reviewtechnicalveneeredzirconia frameworkProspective StudiesCeramicsDental Restoration FailureCrownsRetrospective StudiesDental ImplantsDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported/adverse effectsOral Surgery/dk/atira/pure/researchoutput/researchoutputtypes/contributiontojournal/systematicreview10.1111/clr.13863