Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

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

  • Ya Ru Wei
    ,
  • Xiao Dong Wang
    ,
  • Qin Zhang
    ,
  • Xiang Xia Li
    ,
  • Markus B. Blatz
    ,
  • Yu Tao Jian(corresponding author)
*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Abstract

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.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 1-7 (7 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Dentistry (Volume 47)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 04/05/2015
  • Published - 04/01/2016

Publication status

Published - 04/01/2016

ISSN

0300-5712

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 84975677604
  • PubMed: 26875611

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.14
Fractional count
6
Fractional count
0.86
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
citations
27
SciVal
FWCI
2.17
SciVal
Author count
7
SciVal
Paper percentile
90
SciVal
Top percentile
10

PlumX, opens in new tab

Mentions
1
Captures
167
Citation count
65