Meta-analysis evaluates survival rates of ceramic dental restorations, indicating their high reliability over time.
Background: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the survival rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic dental restorations. Methods: The study followed PRISMA guidelines and the study protocol was pre-registered on the PROSPERO platform (registration number: CRD42024599053). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up period of 1-year were included. The search period was set from 2000 to May 2024. A Comprehensive Literature Search was Performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, references list of relevant reviews and full-text articles were hand-searched to identify potentially eligible studies. Results: A total of 714 articles were identified in the initial search. After screening titles and abstracts, 31 studies were selected for full-text review. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 studies-comprising 13 RCTs and 12 cohort studies-were incorporated into the systematic review. Quality assessment and risk of bias were conducted using 2 established scales. Regarding survival rates, the overall heterogeneity ( I 2 ) among the RCTs was calculated at 23% ( P = .17). The pooled survival rate across these trials was determined to be 96% (95% confidence interval: 94–98%), with a mean follow-up period extending from 12 to 64 months. Conclusion: Ceramic restorations with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing have shown high survival rates in either randomized controlled studies or cohort studies. Meta-analysis results showed high heterogeneity in cohort studies, so randomized controlled studies with a larger number of participants are still needed to prove their clinical effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ling et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: