Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review shows monolithic and micro-veneered designs improve outcomes in fixed dental prostheses, indicating lower complications.
Objective To systematically assess survival, failure, and complication rates of all-ceramic implant-supported monolithic and micro-veneered FDPs (i-FDPs) in partially/completely edentulous patients compared to veneered restorations.Materials And Methods An electronic search identified prospective clinical studies on all-ceramic i-FDPs with at least one inter-implant pontic and a minimal follow-up of 1 year, with no restrictions in language and publication date.Results Only studies on posterior 3-4-unit and full-arch i-FDPs were identified. Twelve studies assessing monolithic, fully veneered, and micro-veneered restorations were included. Regardless of veneering design, the meta-analysis indicated a 3-year success rate of 89.36% for 3-4-unit and 75.56% for full-arch i-FDPs, and an estimated 3-year survival rate of 98.64% and 96.45%, respectively. Analyzing veneering design influence was feasible only for 3-4-unit i-FDPs. Monolithic and micro-veneered 3-4-unit restorations showed significantly lower chipping incidence than fully veneered ones (p < 0.0001). The estimated annual chipping rate was 2.1% for 3-4-unit i-FDPs and 6.9% for full-arch restorations.Conclusion Monolithic/micro-veneered designs are preferred for short-span i-FDPs to minimize chipping, whereas full-arch all-ceramic restorations require caution due to limited evidence and high complication rates. Current findings are based solely on high-strength 3Y-TZP zirconia (> 1000 MPa). No conclusions can be drawn for multilayer zirconia or other ceramics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bishti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: