Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

Yoshida, Tadashi; Kurosaki, Yoko; Mine, Atsushi; Kimura‐Ono, Aya; Mino, Takuya; Osaka, Suguru; Nakagawa, Shojiro; Maekawa, Kenji; Kuboki, Takuo; Yatani, Hirofumi; Yamashita, Atsushi

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.02.004

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, a recent study comparing RBFDP and FDP determined non-vital abutment teeth as risk factor for tooth extraction and reported 15-year cumulative survival rates of 66.5% for RBFDP and 61.6% for FDP. Five-year survival of the two-wing metal-ceramic RBFDP was 89.3% [18], which is similar to the 5-year cumulative survival for metal-ceramic restorations reported in the present study. A review investigating cantilever RBFDP found that debondings, particularly of zirconia ceramics, were the most frequent complication, while fracture was only associated with glass-infiltrated alumina and lithium disilicate ceramics [19].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Clinical outcome of metal- and all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the long-term outcome of metal-and all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP) up to 17 years, and to evaluate potential factors influencing the risk for complications. Methods: Patients who were treated with RBFDP to replace teeth in the anterior or first premolar region in an university setting were identified from electronic records. Data collection comprised dental and periodontal parameters, periapical radiographs, and assessment of the RBFDP. Patientreported satisfaction was evaluated on visual analog scales (VAS), and 5-year cumulative survival and success rates were calculated. Cox regression models were used to compare metal-versus all-ceramic RBFDPs. Results: Seventy-one patients with RBFDP replacing 65 anterior teeth and 6 premolars were included with a mean observation period of 56.1 (±42.7) months. RBFDP cumulative survival rate was 86.7% and cumulative success rate 71.7% after 5 years, with no significant difference between metaland all-ceramic RBFDPs. The risk for RBFDP failure was significantly higher with more than one pontic (OR 6.1; p=0.033), or negative pulp vitality testing of abutments (OR 7.3; p=0.042), while complications tended to be increased with two-wings compared to one-wing RBFDP (OR 5.4; p=0.054). Conclusions: Metal-and all-ceramic RBFDPs facilitated good long-term results, particularly with one-wing, one-cantilever, and vital abutment teeth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Clinical outcome of metal- and all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Would this long span FDP last 28 years like his natural teeth did? 35 In spite of the teeth becoming ankylosed, they gave the patient 28 years of service. The prosthodontist was also savvy in realizing that #9 would be the first tooth to fail and wisely splinted #8–#10 to plan for this future loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐term management of avulsed “hopeless” teeth in the adult dentition

Mathews

Spear²

2020

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This case will demonstrate a thoughtful approach to the management of avulsed/replanted teeth in the adult dentition and their long‐term maintenance. Often times these teeth are either not replanted, or extracted soon after replantation when resorptive lesions appear and the teeth are deemed “hopeless”. The term “hopeless tooth” (HT) has become more popular since the advent of implants. Implants allowed for a simple solution to the HT by extraction and immediate replacement with a fixture and a restoration. However, now that we are realizing that implants do not last forever and also have attendant problems, saving the HT takes on a new light. Clinical considerations Prolonging the life of the HT can preserve bone and give the patient a functional, esthetic tooth for many years. With each additional year, clinicians garner new skills, and technology improves our future treatment outcomes. This will allow clinicians to improve and extend the life of future replacements. Conclusions If there is minimal risk to adjacent structures, retaining the HT has many advantages for the patient and clinician. Clinicians should adopt a policy of thinking ahead and asking “What's Next”? when their prospective treatment fails or needs to be replaced. By prolonging the life of the HT, the “best ultimate treatment” has a greater chance to outlive the patient. Clinical significance With the advent of single tooth implants, the term “hopeless tooth” has become more popular. It is easier to justify extraction of a tooth when it is deemed “hopeless”. Many of these teeth could be saved. The advantages of this philosophy will be elucidated.

show abstract

“…Use of RBFPDs as definitive restorations is justified by survival rates of 91.4% and 82.9% after 5 and 10 years, respectively 20 . Current evidence supports the view that RBFPDs are an equivalent alternative to implant‐supported single crowns and conventional FPD restorations 19–22 . For certain indications, RBFPDs might even be considered the restoration of choice, because they offer high esthetic predictability, can be used when craniofacial growth is still expected, and are almost completely reversible 23,24 …”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In this context, resin‐bonded FPDs (RBFPDs) offer a minimally invasive tooth‐retained alternative 8–12 . Because RBFPD retention is mainly based on adhesion, the abutment teeth usually only require minimal preparation 13–19 . Use of RBFPDs as definitive restorations is justified by survival rates of 91.4% and 82.9% after 5 and 10 years, respectively 20 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Performance of Posterior Inlay‐Retained and Wing‐Retained Monolithic Zirconia Resin‐Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures: Stage One Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Bömicke

Rathmann

Pilz

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To prospectively compare the clinical performance of posterior inlay‐retained and wing‐retained monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Materials and methods After simple randomization, 30 participants received either one inlay‐retained (n = 15; mean age: 56.38 ± 12.70 years; 10 men [66.7%]) or one wing‐retained (n = 15; mean age: 45.90 ±13.24 years; 7 men [46.7%]) FPD. The restorations, which predominantly replaced first molars, were fabricated from translucent, 3 mol% yttria‐stabilized zirconia and attached with self‐etching resin cement. Restorations and abutment teeth were clinically followed up for complications one week and 3, 6, and 12 months after cementation. Plaque and gingival scores, probing pocket depths, and attachment levels were recorded for the abutment and contralateral reference teeth both before treatment and during follow‐up examinations. The restorations were also assessed in accordance with FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted with R (α = 0.05). An adaptive, 2‐stage study design based on the incidence of failure‐free survival in the groups after 12 months (stage 1) was implemented. Predefined decision rules were used to determine whether further recruitment (stage 2) would enable the detection of a statistically significant difference between the restoration designs with sufficient power. Results During 12 months, only one wing retainer debonded which required removal of the FPD. Failure‐free survival was thus 93.3% for wing‐retained and 100% for inlay‐retained FPDs (log‐rank test, p = 0.317). Moderate aftercare resulted in intervention‐free rates of 78.8% and 86.7% for inlay‐retained and wing‐retained restorations, respectively (log‐rank test, p = 0.605). Based on FDI World Dental Federation criteria, all restorations were acceptable at the 12‐month follow‐up (Fisher‐Boschloo test, p = 0.161). Plaque, gingival, and periodontal scores remained practically unchanged from before treatment to the 12‐month follow‐up. Recruitment was stopped after stage 1 because, based on the small difference in the incidence of failure‐free survival in the groups, it was accepted that it would not be possible to recruit the necessary number of participants to show a statistically significant difference between the retainer designs. Conclusions Both inlay‐retained and wing‐retained monolithic zirconia resin‐bonded FPDs performed well for the 12‐month, short‐term follow‐up period.

show abstract

Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

Cited by 29 publications

References 21 publications

Clinical outcome of metal- and all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses

Clinical outcome of metal- and all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses

Long‐term management of avulsed “hopeless” teeth in the adult dentition

Clinical Performance of Posterior Inlay‐Retained and Wing‐Retained Monolithic Zirconia Resin‐Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures: Stage One Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About