Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design

Statement of problem Little is known about the clinical performance of fixed dental prostheses that rigidly connect adhesive retainers and crowns. Purpose The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess and compare the clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2014-09, Vol.112 (3), p.472-480
Hauptverfasser: Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent, Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent, Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent, Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 480
container_issue 3
container_start_page 472
container_title The Journal of prosthetic dentistry
container_volume 112
creator Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent
Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent
Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent
Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent
description Statement of problem Little is known about the clinical performance of fixed dental prostheses that rigidly connect adhesive retainers and crowns. Purpose The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess and compare the clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design. Material and methods Included as participants were all patients of the hospital since 2004 with regular clinical follow-up who were treated with 3-unit or 4-unit metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional 2-adhesive retainer design (conventional group) or with a mixed type combining an adhesive retainer with a crown or a partial crown retainer (mixed group). The analysis included 84 participants with a total of 57 (64%) prostheses in the conventional group and 32 (36%) prostheses in the mixed group. Treatment and data collection were standardized. Cumulative survival without failure (defined as a restoration in need of replacement), chipping, and debonding were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared for the groups (log-rank test) (α=.05). Results During a mean observation period of 4.1 years (SD, 2.5 years; minimum, 0.4 years; maximum, 9.4 years), 12 complications occurred in 10 restorations. Defects of the ceramic veneer (n=6) were observed most frequently. The estimated 5-year failure-free survival rate was 97.4% (standard error, .025) in the conventional group and 95% (standard error, .049) in the mixed group (log-rank, P =.32). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without chipping was 90.7% (standard error, .064) for the conventional group and 93.8% (standard error, .061) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.44). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without debonding was 95.1% (standard error, .034) for the conventional group and 91.5% (standard error, .058) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.54). Conclusions Limited by a small sample size and a short follow-up period, the findings of this retrospective analysis indicate that the clinical performance, in terms of survival and the incidence of complications, is comparable for conventional resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and those that rigidly connect an adhesive wing and a partial or complete crown. Acceptable 5-year survival and complication rates imply that the medium-term prognosis for resin-bonded restorations with a retentive preparation design is comparable with that for conventional fixed dental prostheses.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.025
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1559010659</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S002239131400239X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1559010659</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-70901933fb8d06d7c2014fbc0b431fb1f2cbe5b1413a343da5dc65f5856a95ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUcFuEzEQtRCIhsIvVHvksunYXm_iCwJFtEWqxKEgcbO89pg67HqDvSnk7ztLUg5ckCzbmnlvZt4bxi44LDnw9nK73OWxeEzTUgBvlkBHqGdswUGv6nbd8OdsASBELTWXZ-xVKVsAWKsVf8nORKO5kFov2GHTxxSd7Ss3DjubYxlTNYZqwGmOYbZDdFXGElPdjcmjr0L8TffcmhDzFNM9FizVrzjdV5bqpAfKxTFR2iZPoeEPI1PJmDATtcTv6TV7EWxf8M3pPWdfrz5-2dzUt5-vP20-3NauEXKqV6CBaylDt_bQ-pWb5YbOQddIHjoehOtQdbzh0spGequ8a1VQa9VarSzKc_b2WJdG_bnHMpkhFod9bxOO-2K4UtQBWqUJ2h6hjlSVjMHschxsPhgOZrbdbM2T7WaewwAdoYh4ceqx7wb0f2lPPhPg_RGApPQhYjbFRUwOfczoJuPH-P8e7_4p4U6r-4EHLNtxn8lx0mOKMGDu5uXPu-cN_aT-Jh8BQ9KuXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1559010659</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent ; Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent ; Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent ; Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</creator><creatorcontrib>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent ; Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent ; Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent ; Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</creatorcontrib><description>Statement of problem Little is known about the clinical performance of fixed dental prostheses that rigidly connect adhesive retainers and crowns. Purpose The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess and compare the clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design. Material and methods Included as participants were all patients of the hospital since 2004 with regular clinical follow-up who were treated with 3-unit or 4-unit metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional 2-adhesive retainer design (conventional group) or with a mixed type combining an adhesive retainer with a crown or a partial crown retainer (mixed group). The analysis included 84 participants with a total of 57 (64%) prostheses in the conventional group and 32 (36%) prostheses in the mixed group. Treatment and data collection were standardized. Cumulative survival without failure (defined as a restoration in need of replacement), chipping, and debonding were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared for the groups (log-rank test) (α=.05). Results During a mean observation period of 4.1 years (SD, 2.5 years; minimum, 0.4 years; maximum, 9.4 years), 12 complications occurred in 10 restorations. Defects of the ceramic veneer (n=6) were observed most frequently. The estimated 5-year failure-free survival rate was 97.4% (standard error, .025) in the conventional group and 95% (standard error, .049) in the mixed group (log-rank, P =.32). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without chipping was 90.7% (standard error, .064) for the conventional group and 93.8% (standard error, .061) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.44). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without debonding was 95.1% (standard error, .034) for the conventional group and 91.5% (standard error, .058) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.54). Conclusions Limited by a small sample size and a short follow-up period, the findings of this retrospective analysis indicate that the clinical performance, in terms of survival and the incidence of complications, is comparable for conventional resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and those that rigidly connect an adhesive wing and a partial or complete crown. Acceptable 5-year survival and complication rates imply that the medium-term prognosis for resin-bonded restorations with a retentive preparation design is comparable with that for conventional fixed dental prostheses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.025</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24912399</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Ceramics - chemistry ; Crowns ; Dental Abutments ; Dental Materials - chemistry ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dental Veneers ; Dentistry ; Denture Design ; Denture Retention - instrumentation ; Denture, Partial, Fixed ; Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Metal Ceramic Alloys - chemistry ; Middle Aged ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Surface Properties ; Survival Analysis ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2014-09, Vol.112 (3), p.472-480</ispartof><rights>Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><rights>2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-70901933fb8d06d7c2014fbc0b431fb1f2cbe5b1413a343da5dc65f5856a95ae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-70901933fb8d06d7c2014fbc0b431fb1f2cbe5b1413a343da5dc65f5856a95ae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.025$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24912399$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><description>Statement of problem Little is known about the clinical performance of fixed dental prostheses that rigidly connect adhesive retainers and crowns. Purpose The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess and compare the clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design. Material and methods Included as participants were all patients of the hospital since 2004 with regular clinical follow-up who were treated with 3-unit or 4-unit metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional 2-adhesive retainer design (conventional group) or with a mixed type combining an adhesive retainer with a crown or a partial crown retainer (mixed group). The analysis included 84 participants with a total of 57 (64%) prostheses in the conventional group and 32 (36%) prostheses in the mixed group. Treatment and data collection were standardized. Cumulative survival without failure (defined as a restoration in need of replacement), chipping, and debonding were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared for the groups (log-rank test) (α=.05). Results During a mean observation period of 4.1 years (SD, 2.5 years; minimum, 0.4 years; maximum, 9.4 years), 12 complications occurred in 10 restorations. Defects of the ceramic veneer (n=6) were observed most frequently. The estimated 5-year failure-free survival rate was 97.4% (standard error, .025) in the conventional group and 95% (standard error, .049) in the mixed group (log-rank, P =.32). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without chipping was 90.7% (standard error, .064) for the conventional group and 93.8% (standard error, .061) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.44). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without debonding was 95.1% (standard error, .034) for the conventional group and 91.5% (standard error, .058) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.54). Conclusions Limited by a small sample size and a short follow-up period, the findings of this retrospective analysis indicate that the clinical performance, in terms of survival and the incidence of complications, is comparable for conventional resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and those that rigidly connect an adhesive wing and a partial or complete crown. Acceptable 5-year survival and complication rates imply that the medium-term prognosis for resin-bonded restorations with a retentive preparation design is comparable with that for conventional fixed dental prostheses.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Ceramics - chemistry</subject><subject>Crowns</subject><subject>Dental Abutments</subject><subject>Dental Materials - chemistry</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dental Veneers</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Denture Design</subject><subject>Denture Retention - instrumentation</subject><subject>Denture, Partial, Fixed</subject><subject>Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Metal Ceramic Alloys - chemistry</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUcFuEzEQtRCIhsIvVHvksunYXm_iCwJFtEWqxKEgcbO89pg67HqDvSnk7ztLUg5ckCzbmnlvZt4bxi44LDnw9nK73OWxeEzTUgBvlkBHqGdswUGv6nbd8OdsASBELTWXZ-xVKVsAWKsVf8nORKO5kFov2GHTxxSd7Ss3DjubYxlTNYZqwGmOYbZDdFXGElPdjcmjr0L8TffcmhDzFNM9FizVrzjdV5bqpAfKxTFR2iZPoeEPI1PJmDATtcTv6TV7EWxf8M3pPWdfrz5-2dzUt5-vP20-3NauEXKqV6CBaylDt_bQ-pWb5YbOQddIHjoehOtQdbzh0spGequ8a1VQa9VarSzKc_b2WJdG_bnHMpkhFod9bxOO-2K4UtQBWqUJ2h6hjlSVjMHschxsPhgOZrbdbM2T7WaewwAdoYh4ceqx7wb0f2lPPhPg_RGApPQhYjbFRUwOfczoJuPH-P8e7_4p4U6r-4EHLNtxn8lx0mOKMGDu5uXPu-cN_aT-Jh8BQ9KuXw</recordid><startdate>20140901</startdate><enddate>20140901</enddate><creator>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent</creator><creator>Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent</creator><creator>Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent</creator><creator>Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140901</creationdate><title>Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design</title><author>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent ; Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent ; Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent ; Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-70901933fb8d06d7c2014fbc0b431fb1f2cbe5b1413a343da5dc65f5856a95ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Ceramics - chemistry</topic><topic>Crowns</topic><topic>Dental Abutments</topic><topic>Dental Materials - chemistry</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dental Veneers</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Denture Design</topic><topic>Denture Retention - instrumentation</topic><topic>Denture, Partial, Fixed</topic><topic>Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Metal Ceramic Alloys - chemistry</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boemicke, Wolfgang, MSc, DrMedDent</au><au>Kappel, Stefanie, DrMedDent</au><au>Stober, Thomas, PD, DrMedDent</au><au>Rammelsberg, Peter, ProfDrMedDent</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><date>2014-09-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>112</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>472</spage><epage>480</epage><pages>472-480</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract>Statement of problem Little is known about the clinical performance of fixed dental prostheses that rigidly connect adhesive retainers and crowns. Purpose The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess and compare the clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design. Material and methods Included as participants were all patients of the hospital since 2004 with regular clinical follow-up who were treated with 3-unit or 4-unit metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional 2-adhesive retainer design (conventional group) or with a mixed type combining an adhesive retainer with a crown or a partial crown retainer (mixed group). The analysis included 84 participants with a total of 57 (64%) prostheses in the conventional group and 32 (36%) prostheses in the mixed group. Treatment and data collection were standardized. Cumulative survival without failure (defined as a restoration in need of replacement), chipping, and debonding were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared for the groups (log-rank test) (α=.05). Results During a mean observation period of 4.1 years (SD, 2.5 years; minimum, 0.4 years; maximum, 9.4 years), 12 complications occurred in 10 restorations. Defects of the ceramic veneer (n=6) were observed most frequently. The estimated 5-year failure-free survival rate was 97.4% (standard error, .025) in the conventional group and 95% (standard error, .049) in the mixed group (log-rank, P =.32). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without chipping was 90.7% (standard error, .064) for the conventional group and 93.8% (standard error, .061) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.44). The 5-year cumulative survival rate without debonding was 95.1% (standard error, .034) for the conventional group and 91.5% (standard error, .058) for the mixed group (log-rank, P =.54). Conclusions Limited by a small sample size and a short follow-up period, the findings of this retrospective analysis indicate that the clinical performance, in terms of survival and the incidence of complications, is comparable for conventional resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and those that rigidly connect an adhesive wing and a partial or complete crown. Acceptable 5-year survival and complication rates imply that the medium-term prognosis for resin-bonded restorations with a retentive preparation design is comparable with that for conventional fixed dental prostheses.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24912399</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.025</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3913
ispartof The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2014-09, Vol.112 (3), p.472-480
issn 0022-3913
1097-6841
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1559010659
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ceramics - chemistry
Crowns
Dental Abutments
Dental Materials - chemistry
Dental Restoration Failure
Dental Veneers
Dentistry
Denture Design
Denture Retention - instrumentation
Denture, Partial, Fixed
Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Metal Ceramic Alloys - chemistry
Middle Aged
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Surface Properties
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
title Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T17%3A01%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20comparison%20of%20metal%20ceramic%20resin-bonded%20fixed%20dental%20prostheses%20with%20a%20conventional%20and%20a%20mixed%20retainer%20design&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=Boemicke,%20Wolfgang,%20MSc,%20DrMedDent&rft.date=2014-09-01&rft.volume=112&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=472&rft.epage=480&rft.pages=472-480&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.025&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1559010659%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1559010659&rft_id=info:pmid/24912399&rft_els_id=S002239131400239X&rfr_iscdi=true