Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 12, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparison of mechanical complications between metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia implant-supported prostheses: A
Jea-Oh Park1, Young-Bum Park2, Joon-Ho Yoon3
1Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, National Health Insurance Service - Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-si, Republic of Korea; Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Statement Of Problem:
Comparative studies assessing monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic for implant-supported fixed prostheses remain limited.
Purpose:
This retrospective study aimed to compare the survival and success of metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia implant-supported prostheses using a split-mouth design.
Material And Methods:
This study included 112 participants with 302 implant-supported prostheses. All participants had received both metal-ceramic (n=145) and monolithic zirconia (n=157) restorations between January 2018 and January 2024. Mechanical complications were recorded for all restorations. For the split-mouth analysis, the odds ratio was calculated using generalized estimating equations (GEEs). To compare the 5-year cumulative survival rates between groups, the Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test (α=.05) were performed.
Results:
The mean follow-up was 36 months. Of the 302 implant-supported prostheses, 12 metal-ceramic and 10 monolithic zirconia restorations failed. The 5-year cumulative survival rates were 90.9% (95% CI, 85.9% to 95.9%) for the metal-ceramic group and 90.0% (95% CI, 81.9% to 98.2%) for the monolithic zirconia group, with no significant difference (P=.653). Similarly, survival rates did not differ significantly for single crown (P=.240) or fixed partial denture (P=.647). According to GEE analysis, the odds ratio for mechanical complications between the groups was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.41 to 2.98). Although complications were more frequent in the metal-ceramic group, the difference was not statistically significant (P=.830).
Conclusions:
In this retrospective split-mouth study, the 5-year cumulative survival rates and the incidence of mechanical complications did not differ significantly between metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia implant-supported prostheses. Although metal-ceramic showed a higher number of complications, this difference was not statistically significant. Within the limitations of this study, monolithic zirconia may be considered a suitable material for implant-supported prostheses.
