This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by De Kanter, R.J.A.M. Articles by Van't Hof, M.A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by De Kanter, R.J.A.M. Articles by Van't Hof, M.A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Five-year Multi-practice Clinical Study on Posterior Resin-bonded Bridges

Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry

N.H.J. Creugers

Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry

C.W.G.J.M. Verzijden

Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry

M.A. Van't Hof

Department of Medical Statistics, Dental School, University of Nijmegen, P.O.Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands

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.

Key Words: acid-etching • clinical trials • dental materials • dental prosthesis • survival analysis.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 77, No. 4, 609-614 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345980770041401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?