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, Ke Zhao

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

20 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume47
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

Dental Prosthesis
Meta-Analysis
Ceramics
Cohort Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Metals
Dental Prosthesis Design

Keywords

  • Denture
  • Meta-analysis
  • Resin-bonded
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Wei, Ya Ru; Wang, Xiao Dong; Zhang, Qin; Li, Xiang Xia; Blatz, Markus B.; Jian, Yu Tao; Zhao, Ke.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 47, 01.04.2016, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Wei, Ya Ru ; Wang, Xiao Dong ; Zhang, Qin ; Li, Xiang Xia ; Blatz, Markus B. ; Jian, Yu Tao ; Zhao, Ke. / Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2016 ; Vol. 47. pp. 1-7.
@article{c18c52840f7944049c67a58e3f80bc73,
title = "Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
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.",
keywords = "Denture, Meta-analysis, Resin-bonded, Systematic review",
author = "Wei, {Ya Ru} and Wang, {Xiao Dong} and Qin Zhang and Li, {Xiang Xia} and Blatz, {Markus B.} and Jian, {Yu Tao} and Ke Zhao",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Wei, Ya Ru

AU - Wang, Xiao Dong

AU - Zhang, Qin

AU - Li, Xiang Xia

AU - Blatz, Markus B.

AU - Jian, Yu Tao

AU - Zhao, Ke

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Denture

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Resin-bonded

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975677604&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975677604&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.003

M3 - Review article

C2 - 26875611

AN - SCOPUS:84975677604

VL - 47

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

ER -