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
SN - 0300-5712
VL - 47
SP - 1
EP - 7
JO - Journal of Dentistry
JF - Journal of Dentistry
ER -