Marinkovic D,
Gutiérrez R, Frey M, Collao F, Moreno Y, Miranda C. Prosthetic and Biological
Complications of Metal–Zirconia versus Metal–Acrylic Implant-Supported
Screw-Retained Complete-Arch Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2026;18(5):e704-15.
doi:10.4317/jced.63882
https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.63882
___
References
|
1.
Mac Giolla Phadraig C, Nunn J, McCallion P, McCarron M. Prevalence of
edentulism among adults with intellectual disabilities: a narrative review
informed by systematic review principles. Spec Care Dentist. 2018;38:191-200. |
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Egilmez F, Ergun G, Cekic-Nagas I, Bozkaya S. Implant-supported hybrid
prosthesis: conventional treatment method for borderline cases. Eur J Dent.
2015;9:442-448. |
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RLX, Barao VAR.
Comparison between All-on-four and All-on-six treatment concepts and
framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a
prototyping-guided 3D finite element analysis study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater
Biol Appl. 2016;69:715-725. |
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of
the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental
prostheses after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral
Implants Res. 2012;23:22-38. |
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Fischer K, Stenberg T. Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized
controlled trial on implant-supported full-arch maxillary prostheses. Part
II: prosthetic outcomes and maintenance. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.
2013;15:498-508. |
|
|
|
|
|
6.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care
interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1-34. |
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing
summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol.
2013;66:158-172. |
|
|
|
|
|
8.
Ayna M, Gulses A, Acil Y. Comprehensive comparison of the 5-year results of
All-on-4 mandibular implant systems with acrylic and zirconia
suprastructures. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41:675-683. |
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Ayna M, Karayurek F, Jepsen S, et al. Six-year clinical outcomes of
implant-supported acrylic vs zirconia superstructures according to the
All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla.
Odontology. 2021;109:930-940. |
|
|
|
|
|
10.
Ayna M, Gulses A, Acil Y. A comparative study on 7-year results of the
All-on-4 immediate-function concept for completely edentulous mandibles:
metal-zirconia vs bar-retained superstructures. Odontology. 2018;106:73-82. |
|
|
|
|
|
11.
Hjalmarsson L, Smedberg JI, Pettersson M, Jemt T. Implant-level prostheses in
the edentulous maxilla: a comparison with conventional abutment-level
prostheses after 5 years of use. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24:158-167. |
|
|
|
|
|
12.
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ, et al. Technical complications and
prosthesis survival rates with implant-supported fixed complete dental
prostheses: a retrospective study with 1- to 12-year follow-up. J Prosthodont.
2020;29:3-11. |
|
|
|
|
|
13.
Chochlidakis K, Ercoli C, Einarsdottir E, et al. Implant survival and
biologic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up to
5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:375-381. |
|
|
|
|
|
14.
Cercadillo-Ibarguren I, Sanchez-Torres A, Figueiredo R, Schwarz F, Gay-Escoda
C, Valmaseda-Castellon E. Immediately loaded implant-supported full-arches:
peri-implant status after 1-9 years in a private practice. J Dent.
2017;67:72-76. |
|
|
|
|
|
15.
Penarrocha-Oltra D, Candel-Marti E, Penarrocha-Diago M, Martinez-Gonzalez JM,
Aragoneses JM, Penarrocha-Diago M. Palatal positioning of implants in
severely atrophic edentulous maxillae: five-year cross-sectional
retrospective follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2013;28:1140-1146. |
|
|
|
|
|
16.
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ, et al. Implant survival rates and
biologic complications with implant-supported fixed complete dental
prostheses: a retrospective study with up to 12-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 2018;29:881-893. |
|
|
|
|
|
17.
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Natto ZS, et al. Double full-arch fixed
implant-supported prostheses: outcomes and complications after a mean
follow-up of 5 years. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:387-397. |
|
|
|
|
|
18.
Sanchez-Salvatierra JM, Taype-Rondan A. Evolution of the Hippocratic oath:
what has changed and why? Rev Med Chil. 2018;146:1498-1500. |
|
|
|
|
|
19.
Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, et al. Survival rates and
prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up
to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:539-546. |
|
|
|
|
|
20.
Sanchez-Torres A, Cercadillo-Ibarguren I, Figueiredo R, Gay-Escoda C,
Valmaseda-Castellon E. Mechanical complications of implant-supported
complete-arch restorations and impact on patient quality of life: a
retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:279-286. |
|
|
|
|
|
21.
Rodriguez LC, Saba JN, Meyer CA, Chung KH, Wadhwani C, Rodrigues DC. A finite
element analysis of novel vented dental abutment geometries for
cement-retained crown restorations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2016;2:136-145. |
|
|
|
|
|
22.
Jerman E, Lumkemann N, Eichberger M, et al. Evaluation of translucency,
Martens hardness, biaxial flexural strength and fracture toughness of 3Y-TZP,
4Y-TZP and 5Y-TZP materials. Dent Mater. 2021;37:212-222. |
|
|
|
|
|
23.
AlTarawneh S, Thalji G, Cooper L. Full-arch implant-supported monolithic
zirconia fixed dental prostheses: an updated systematic review. Int J Oral
Implantol. 2021;14:13-22. |
|
|
|
|
|
24.
Happe A, Roling N, Schafer A, Rothamel D. Effects of different polishing
protocols on the surface roughness of Y-TZP surfaces used for custom-made
implant abutments: a controlled morphologic SEM and profilometric pilot
study. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113:440-447. |
|
|
|
|
|
25.
Fuda S, Martins BGDS, Castro FC, et al. Marginal bone level and clinical
parameter analysis comparing external hexagon and Morse taper implants: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics. 2023;13:1587. |
|
|
|
|
|
26.
Chen X, Xu Z, Gai K, Pei X, Li R, Wan Q. Biomechanical analysis of All-on-4
implant-supported framework using different materials across various clinical
practice. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25:552. |
|
|
|
|
|
27.
Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of
implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes: definition,
assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol.
2017;10:121-138. |
|
|
|
|
|
28.
Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw-retained multi-unit implant
prosthesis: understanding and achieving. J Indian Prosthodont Soc.
2014;14:16-23. |
|
|
|
|
|
29.
Sahin Hazir D, Sozen Yanik I, Guncu MB, Canay RS. Biomechanical behavior of
titanium, cobalt-chromium, zirconia, and PEEK frameworks in implant-supported
prostheses: a dynamic finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25:97. |
|
|
|
|
|
30.
Padros R, Punset M, Molmeneu M, et al. Mechanical properties of CoCr
dental-prosthesis restorations made by three manufacturing processes:
influence of the microstructure and topography. Metals. 2020;10:788. |
|
|
|
|
|
31.
Egawa M, Miura T, Kato T, Saito A, Yoshinari M. In vitro adherence of
periodontopathic bacteria to zirconia and titanium surfaces. Dent Mater J.
2013;32:101-106. |
|
|
|
|
|
32.
Sadid-Zadeh R, Willis J, Forgo G, Haraszthy V. Comparative analysis of
biofilm formation on materials used for the fabrication of implant-supported
prostheses. Braz Dent J. 2020;31:380-384. |
|