Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses. Issue 3 (July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yoshida, T.; Kurosaki, Y.; Mine, A.; Kimura-Ono, A.; Mino, T.; Osaka, S.; Nakagawa, S.; Maekawa, K.; Kuboki, T.; Yatani, H.; Yamashita, A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontic research. Volume 63:Issue 3(2019)
• Page Start: 374
• Page End: 382
• Publication Date: 2019-07
• Subjects: Adhesion bridge -- Adhesive dentistry -- Clinical study -- Bonding -- Longevity -- Fixed denture; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Computer network resources; 617.6905
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.02.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1883-1958

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: We clarified cumulative survival and event-free rates of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) and compared them to those of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) to refine risk factors for non-survival/event and use of tooth extraction after the period of non-survival/event. Methods: Study subjects were selected among all patients who consecutively attended the Fixed Prosthodontic Clinic of Okayama University Hospital. Eligible patients were those who received 3-unit metal-framed 2-retainer (wing–wing) RBFDPs or conventional full-coverage FDPs (RBFDPs/FDPs: 129/177 prostheses). Data were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier analysis with the log-rank test, Mann–Whitney test, chi-square test, and Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: The 15-year cumulative survival rates were 66.5% for the RBFDP group and 61.6% for the FDP group, which were not significantly different (p = 0.59). The 15-year cumulative event-free rates were 53.4% for the RBFDP group and 59.2% for the FDP group, which were not significantly different (p = 0.52). No significant risk factors related to non-survival and event-free of RBFDPs/FDPs were identified in the analysis model using treatment method, sex, age, number of remaining teeth, and treatment site as explanatory variables. The number of cases in which RBFDPs/FDPs resulted in non-survival due to abutment tooth extraction was significantly lower in RBFDPs (p < 0.01). Further, the abutment tooth as a non-vital tooth was identified as a risk factor for RBFDPs/FDPs resulting in non-survival due to abutment tooth extraction. Conclusions: The present study is the first to indicate RBFDP as a prosthetic treatment option which should be selected for patients with slight or no abutment tooth decay.