Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

T. Yoshida, Y. Kurosaki, A. Mine, A. Kimura-Ono, T. Mino, S. Osaka, S. Nakagawa, K. Maekawa, T. Kuboki, H. Yatani, A. Yamashita

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Prosthodontic Research
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Dental Prosthesis
Survival
Tooth Extraction
Tooth
Synthetic Resins
Prosthodontics

Keywords

  • Adhesion bridge
  • Adhesive dentistry
  • Bonding
  • Clinical study
  • Fixed denture
  • Longevity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery
  • Dentistry (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses. / Yoshida, T.; Kurosaki, Y.; Mine, A.; Kimura-Ono, A.; Mino, T.; Osaka, S.; Nakagawa, S.; Maekawa, K.; Kuboki, T.; Yatani, H.; Yamashita, A.

In: Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0e01fc07b455450d8f53c16eedf8e83a,
title = "Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses",
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.",
keywords = "Adhesion bridge, Adhesive dentistry, Bonding, Clinical study, Fixed denture, Longevity",
author = "T. Yoshida and Y. Kurosaki and A. Mine and A. Kimura-Ono and T. Mino and S. Osaka and S. Nakagawa and K. Maekawa and T. Kuboki and H. Yatani and A. Yamashita",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpor.2019.02.004",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontic Research",
issn = "1883-1958",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

AU - Yoshida, T.

AU - Kurosaki, Y.

AU - Mine, A.

AU - Kimura-Ono, A.

AU - Mino, T.

AU - Osaka, S.

AU - Nakagawa, S.

AU - Maekawa, K.

AU - Kuboki, T.

AU - Yatani, H.

AU - Yamashita, A.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Adhesion bridge

KW - Adhesive dentistry

KW - Bonding

KW - Clinical study

KW - Fixed denture

KW - Longevity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062808371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062808371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.02.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.02.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 30878520

AN - SCOPUS:85062808371

JO - Journal of Prosthodontic Research

JF - Journal of Prosthodontic Research

SN - 1883-1958

ER -