Zirconia-based versus metal-framework veneered complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies with integrated cost-effectiveness analysis
- 121D Clinical Limited
Abstract
ObjectivesTo systematically compare the outcomes of zirconia-based versus metal-framework veneered implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (ISFCDPs). We integrate cost-effectiveness analysis comparing monolithic zirconia versus titanium-PMMA ISFCDPs to model the 20-year costs and benefits associated with each arm.
Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched on March 6 2026 with no date restrictions applied.
Study selectionTwo-arm comparative studies reporting clinical outcomes for both zirconia-based and metal-framework veneered ISFCDPs with a minimum of one-year follow-up after prosthesis delivery.
Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Narrative synthesis followed SWiM guidelines. A tiered material classification system was employed to handle framework alloy heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in outcomes reported and methodological differences. A Markov cohort model estimated cost-effectiveness from a patient perspective over a 20-year horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) tested results robustness.
ResultsEight retrospective cohort studies (396 patients; 551 prostheses) were included in final analysis. All were classified as Tier 1 due to inconsistent alloy reporting. Prosthesis and implant survival rates were high across both arms but with no statistical difference for any primary outcome. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated total discounted per-patient costs of {pound}23,295 for titanium-PMMA and {pound}29,170 for monolithic zirconia over 20 years. This results in an ICER of {pound}315,417 per QALY gained. PSA confirmed zirconia as cost-effective in only 0.50% of 10,000 iterations at the {pound}20,000/QALY threshold. Net monetary benefit was consistently negative for zirconia.
ConclusionsBoth types of ISFCDPs provided high prosthesis and implant survival with no statistically significant difference in primary clinical outcomes, though all evidence was graded at very low certainty. We estimated a per-patient premium of {pound}5,875 for monolithic zirconia over a 20-year horizon with marginal QALY gains (0.019). Adequately powered RCTs with standardised material reporting are needed to strengthen our clinical and economic conclusions.
Systematic review registrationOSF: 10.17605/OSFJO/CF796
Related
- Interdisciplinary care models for functional movement disorders: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and implications for integrated healthcare delivery
- Comparative Effectiveness of Tricyclic Antidepressants, Serotonin–Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors, and Anticonvulsants for Diabetic Painful Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Comparative effectiveness of acupuncture combined with rehabilitation for post-stroke hemiplegia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Comparative effectiveness of exercise and self-management interventions delivered through different modes of digital support on pain and patient-reported physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rebamipide Versus Diquafosol in the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BibTeX
@misc{coote2026zirconiabased,
title = {{Zirconia-based versus metal-framework veneered complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies with integrated cost-effectiveness analysis}},
author = {E. Coote and N. Patel and R. Vijayanarayanan},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.02.26362012},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.02.26362012v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Zirconia-based versus metal-framework veneered complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies with integrated cost-effectiveness analysis
AU - E. Coote
AU - N. Patel
AU - R. Vijayanarayanan
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.02.26362012
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.02.26362012v1
AB - ObjectivesTo systematically compare the outcomes of zirconia-based versus metal-framework veneered implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (ISFCDPs). We integrate cost-effectiveness analysis comparing monolithic zirconia versus titanium-PMMA ISFCDPs to model the 20-year costs and benefits associated with each arm. Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched on March 6 2026 with no date restrictions applied. Study selectionTwo-arm comparative studies reporting clinical outcomes for both zirconia-based and metal-framework veneered ISFCDPs with a minimum of one-year follow-up after prosthesis delivery. Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Narrative synthesis followed SWiM guidelines. A tiered material classification system was employed to handle framework alloy heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in outcomes reported and methodological differences. A Markov cohort model estimated cost-effectiveness from a patient perspective over a 20-year horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) tested results robustness. ResultsEight retrospective cohort studies (396 patients; 551 prostheses) were included in final analysis. All were classified as Tier 1 due to inconsistent alloy reporting. Prosthesis and implant survival rates were high across both arms but with no statistical difference for any primary outcome. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated total discounted per-patient costs of {pound}23,295 for titanium-PMMA and {pound}29,170 for monolithic zirconia over 20 years. This results in an ICER of {pound}315,417 per QALY gained. PSA confirmed zirconia as cost-effective in only 0.50% of 10,000 iterations at the {pound}20,000/QALY threshold. Net monetary benefit was consistently negative for zirconia. ConclusionsBoth types of ISFCDPs provided high prosthesis and implant survival with no statistically significant difference in primary clinical outcomes, though all evidence was graded at very low certainty. We estimated a per-patient premium of {pound}5,875 for monolithic zirconia over a 20-year horizon with marginal QALY gains (0.019). Adequately powered RCTs with standardised material reporting are needed to strengthen our clinical and economic conclusions. Systematic review registrationOSF: 10.17605/OSFJO/CF796
ER -