Fixed partial dentures in an up to 8-year follow-up

Abstract

Information on the longevity of fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures (inlay FPDs) should be considered in the selection of materials, operative techniques and patient instructions related to prognosis and long-term cost-effectiveness.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the long-term survival of fiber-reinforced, adhesively-bonded composite prostheses placed in posterior teeth.Material and Methods Twenty-one patients that received adhesively bonded polyethylene inlay FPDs in posterior teeth were selected from a private practice dental office and invited to evaluation. Of the eligible 21 patients, 13 (mean age 50.3 ±11.5 years) agreed to be enrolled as participants, providing 22 restorations, as several subjects presented more than one inlay FPD. One dentist placed all inlay FPDs using Ribbond as reinforcement and Tetric Ceram/Durafil or Charisma/Renamel composite combinations, according to manufacturer’s instructions. Two independent calibrated operators performed the evaluation, using modified USPHS criteria. Survival functions of restorations were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and Log Rank test (α = 0.05).ResultsThe majority of restorations received A or B scores. Four (18.2%) inlay FPDs fractured among the 22 evaluated. The mean estimate survival rate was 7 years (95% CI: 5.9 to 8.1), and the overall percentage of survival was 81.8%. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) between composite combinations or tooth location considering all clinical aspects evaluated and survival functions.ConclusionPosterior fiber-reinforced fixed partial dentures exhibited acceptable clinical performance after a period up to 8 years.

Five‐year success rate of resin‐bonded fixed partial dentures: A systematic review

“…The majority of the studies adopted different preparation techniques using grooves, pin holes, and guiding planes to improve seating and retention of RBFPDs. Some studies utilized retention through box preparation inlays in the abutment teeth …”

“…With the introduction of newer and stronger ceramic and non‐ceramic materials, the use of RBFPDs with nonmetallic frameworks has increased significantly. Glass ceramic, zirconia, lithium disilicate, and fiber‐reinforced composite (FRC) have been used by clinicians to replace metal frameworks RBFPDs, classically known as Maryland bridges . However, very little long‐term data exist for nonmetal RBFPDs compared to metal RBFPDs.…”

Three years clinical outcome of hybrid fixed-fixed bridges

“…[15] Information on the longevity of hybrid FPDs should be considered in the selection of materials, operative techniques and patient instructions related to prognosis and long-term cost-effectiveness. [16] Patient with occlusal factors such as absence of bruxism, good occlusal stability and the presence of remaining teeth are good candidates for such type of FPDs [3]. Immediate dentine sealing, appears to achieve improved bond strength, fewer gap formations, decrease bacterial leakage and reduced dentine sensitivity [11].…”

Adhesiefbruggen

“…De resultaten van vezelverstrekte composietadhesiefbruggen benaderen die van driedelige Maryland-adhesiefbruggen ( Van Heumen et al, 2009;Cenci et al, 2010). Opmerkelijk is dat de duurzaamheid van Maryland-adhesiefbruggen met een vezelversterkte composietbasisstructuur in het front en die in de zijdelingse delen een omgekeerd beeld geeft ten opzichte van de Maryland-adhesiefbruggen met een metalen basisstructuur.…”