PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients rehabilitated using a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension or two implants supporting two single crowns.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review of relevant literature published from 2000 was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases. Moreover, a manual search was performed. A meta-analysis of the resulting data was carried out. Peri-implant marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, prevalence of technical and mechanical complications, implant survival rate, and prosthesis survival rate were assessed.ResultsThe meta-analysis showed a non-statistically significant change in the peri-implant marginal bone level and probing pocket depth in the cantilever group and revealed a non-significant prevalence of technical complications, showing a 27% rate in the cantilever group. The analysis of the prosthesis survival rate in the cantilever group showed a mean survival rate of 99% while the comparison of the implant survival between the two groups revealed an odds ratio of 0.50.ConclusionsThe use of a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension does not result in lower implant survival rate if compared with two implants supporting two single crowns. Moreover, a high prosthesis survival rate was observed in the cantilever group even if the high prevalence of complications should be carefully considered by the clinician.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implant-supported single-unit crowns with cantilever extensions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Liguori M. G.;
2024-01-01

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients rehabilitated using a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension or two implants supporting two single crowns.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review of relevant literature published from 2000 was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases. Moreover, a manual search was performed. A meta-analysis of the resulting data was carried out. Peri-implant marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, prevalence of technical and mechanical complications, implant survival rate, and prosthesis survival rate were assessed.ResultsThe meta-analysis showed a non-statistically significant change in the peri-implant marginal bone level and probing pocket depth in the cantilever group and revealed a non-significant prevalence of technical complications, showing a 27% rate in the cantilever group. The analysis of the prosthesis survival rate in the cantilever group showed a mean survival rate of 99% while the comparison of the implant survival between the two groups revealed an odds ratio of 0.50.ConclusionsThe use of a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension does not result in lower implant survival rate if compared with two implants supporting two single crowns. Moreover, a high prosthesis survival rate was observed in the cantilever group even if the high prevalence of complications should be carefully considered by the clinician.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implant-supported single-unit crowns with cantilever extensions A systematic review and meta-analysis.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 1.79 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.79 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/265287
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact