Question · asked by 1 review
Ceramic implant abutment vs Metal implant abutments (titanium): Overall success rate
- Population
- Patients receiving implant-supported single crowns / short-span FDPs
- Intervention
- Ceramic implant abutment
- Comparison
- Metal implant abutments (titanium)
- Outcome
- Overall success rate
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ceramic implant abutment vs Titanium implant abutment Success rate · Patients receiving implant-supported single crowns / short-span FDPs Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | Andersson 2003: 94% (16/17) ceramic vs 100% (12/12) titanium; Andersson 2001: 93% (28/30) ceramic vs 100% (35/35) titanium; no statistical analysis provided; no measurable / non-significant differences in alveolar bone… | 2 studies · 107 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2011-03 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.