Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings: all comparisons.
| Metal‐free materials compared with metal‐ceramic or other conventional all‐metal materials for prosthodontic restorations |
|
Patient or population: adults (18 years of age or older) with prosthodontic restorations Settings: primary or secondary care Intervention: metal‐free materials Comparison: metal‐ceramic or other conventional all‐metal materials |
| This review is made up almost entirely of single‐study comparisons of very small studies. For each comparison, the evidence for the primary outcomes 'failure of the prosthesis', 'complications' and 'aesthetic evaluation' at all times of assessment was rated as being very low quality. All bodies of evidence were downgraded by 1 level for risk of bias and by 2 levels for imprecision (due to single‐study comparisons with either very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% CIs including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems) This review has included studies assessing the following comparisons 1) Metal‐free single crowns compared to conventional crowns 2) Metal‐free FDPs compared to metal‐ceramic FDPs 3) Metal‐free cantilevered FDPs compared to metal‐ceramic cantilevered FDPs 4) Metal‐free implant‐supported single crowns compared to metal‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns 5) Metal‐free abutments compared to metal abutments supporting single crowns 6) Metal‐free implant‐supported FDPs made of different materials 7) Metal‐free tooth‐supported FDPs made of different materials |
| CI: confidence interval; FDPs: fixed dental prostheses. |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate |