Chris C L Wyatt1. 1. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty Of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. cwyatt@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dentists often question the use of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) for reliable restoration of tooth-bound edentulous spaces. Initial attempts at bonding fixed partial dentures on teeth resulted in early failure due to debonding. In the 1980s and 1990s, improvements in preparation methods, metal alloys and bonding techniques made the RBFPD a more predictable option. In this paper, we summarize recent information concerning its success and failure. METHODS: A MEDLINE search using key words describing RBFPDs was carried out to identify pertinent English articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals since 2000. RESULTS: The principle reason for failure of RBFPDs remains debonding of the framework from the abutment teeth. Selection of nonmobile abutment teeth, preparation to enhance retention and resistance form, choice of the appropriate alloy and metal, and tooth bonding technique are the keys to success. The use of cantilever and nonrigid attachments may decrease interabutment forces and reduce debonding of retainers. CONCLUSIONS: The survival rate of RBFPDs is still considerably lower than that of conventional fixed partial dentures. Although RBFPDs can be used in both the anterior and posterior regions of the mouth to replace 1 or 2 missing teeth, careful abutment selection, tooth preparation, alloy selection and bonding technique are critical for clinical success.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dentists often question the use of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) for reliable restoration of tooth-bound edentulous spaces. Initial attempts at bonding fixed partial dentures on teeth resulted in early failure due to debonding. In the 1980s and 1990s, improvements in preparation methods, metal alloys and bonding techniques made the RBFPD a more predictable option. In this paper, we summarize recent information concerning its success and failure. METHODS: A MEDLINE search using key words describing RBFPDs was carried out to identify pertinent English articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals since 2000. RESULTS: The principle reason for failure of RBFPDs remains debonding of the framework from the abutment teeth. Selection of nonmobile abutment teeth, preparation to enhance retention and resistance form, choice of the appropriate alloy and metal, and tooth bonding technique are the keys to success. The use of cantilever and nonrigid attachments may decrease interabutment forces and reduce debonding of retainers. CONCLUSIONS: The survival rate of RBFPDs is still considerably lower than that of conventional fixed partial dentures. Although RBFPDs can be used in both the anterior and posterior regions of the mouth to replace 1 or 2 missing teeth, careful abutment selection, tooth preparation, alloy selection and bonding technique are critical for clinical success.