A five-year multi-practice clinical study on posterior resin-bonded bridges.
Previous clinical observations have revealed that resin-bonded bridges for posterior tooth replacements are less retentive than anterior resin-bonded bridges. Improved bonding procedures and preparation designs, however, may have a positive effect on the functional durability of these restorations. The present study reports the final analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial in which different designs of posterior resin-bonded bridges were evaluated for a period of at least 5 years. The operational hypothesis was that the bonding system and the preparation design used in posterior resin-bonded bridges have an influence on the survival and clinical functioning of these restorations. Survival in this study was defined at two levels: (1) 'complete' survival (survival without any debonding), and (2) 'functional' survival (survival including loss of retention on one occasion and successful rebonding of the original RBB without further debonding). With regard to 'complete' survival, no significant differences were found between the bonding systems used for adherence of the restorations to abutment teeth (etching/Clearfil F2, sandblasting/Panavia EX, and silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C). The variable 'preparation form' (conventional preparation form vs. modified preparation form) for complete survival was statistically in favor of the modified preparation form (62% vs. 46%), but did not influence the functional survival. With regard to 'functional' survival, the combination of silica coating and Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other bonding systems (90% survival vs. 72% and 75%, p < 0.01). Factor location was found to be highly significant for both survival levels [Cox's PH model, p = 0.0002 (Cox, 1972)]: The five-year 'complete' survival rates were 65% for maxillary restorations and 40% for mandibular restorations, while the five-year 'functional' survival rates were 89% and 68%, respectively. It is concluded that preparation of grooves in abutment teeth for posterior resin-bonded bridges is beneficial to their chance of survival. Resin-bonded bridges placed in the maxilla have a better prognosis than those made in the mandible. The bonding systems used in this study appear to have no influence on the chance of failure. In rebonded posterior resin-bonded bridges, the bonding system silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other systems tested.
De Kanter
R J
RJ
Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Creugers
N H
NH
Verzijden
C W
CW
Van't Hof
M A
MA
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D001641:Bicuspid; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D000044:Dental Abutments; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003779:Denture Design; D003780:Denture Repair; D003781:Denture Retention; D016379:Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008334:Mandible; D008437:Maxilla; D008963:Molar; D010710:Phosphates / Q000737:chemistry; D011379:Prognosis; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D012822:Silicon Dioxide / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D016019:Survival Analysis; D019231:Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic
D003188:Composite Resins; D003738:Dental Cements; D010710:Phosphates; D019279:Resin Cements; C059664:Microfill Pontic; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; C086115:Clearfil F2; C052304:Panavia EX