Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Dent

Department of Prosthodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address:

Published: April 2016

Objectives: To systematically review the failure rate and complications of different framework designs of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) in the anterior region.

Methods: A systematic search for clinical studies on RBFDPs published prior to December 2014 in Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted and complemented by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared at least two RBFDP framework designs with a minimum of 2 years follow up were included in this review. The quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and Cochrane Handbook for RCT. Prostheses-based data on reported failure rate/survival rate, debonding, and fractures were analyzed by meta-analysis.

Results: Of 1010 screened articles, one RCT and 4 cohort studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All included articles have a high risk of bias. Failure rates of single-retainer cantilever RBFDPs were lower than two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.94, P=0.04). Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of failure rates between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.33-2.63, P=0.89). Debonding was not significantly different between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.60, P=0.32). Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of debonding between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.28-2.34, P=0.70,).

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, cantilever RBFDPs demonstrate lower clinical failure than two-retainer RBFDPs in the anterior region. The failure of metal-ceramic RBFDPs is independent of the framework design, while the failure of all-ceramic RBFDPs with different designs has not been clear yet.

Clinical Significance: Based on the principle of minimally invasive treatment, less number of retainers is recommended for RBFDPs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cantilever rbfdps
20
rbfdps
17
two-retainer fixed-fixed
16
fixed-fixed rbfdps
16
framework designs
12
cohort studies
12
metal-ceramic rbfdps
12
rbfdps two-retainer
12
resin-bonded fixed
8
fixed dental
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!