Critical review about two myths in fixed dental prostheses: Full-Coverage vs. Resin-Bonded, non-Cantilever vs. Cantilever
The purpose of this review was to assess the literature regarding four types of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)/resin-bonded FDPs (RBFDPs) to provide clinicians with a comparative overview of two myths: "RBFDPs are easy to debond in patients' mouths" and "cantilever RBFDPs still h...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Published: |
Elsevier,
2021-11-01T00:00:00Z.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000 am a22000003u 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | doaj_8d3fd03a08bd4c2e9c5c99cd4c11135d | ||
| 042 | |a dc | ||
| 100 | 1 | 0 | |a Atsushi Mine |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Masanori Fujisawa |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Shoko Miura |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Masahiro Yumitate |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Shintaro Ban |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Azusa Yamanaka |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Masaya Ishida |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Jun Takebe |e author |
| 700 | 1 | 0 | |a Hirofumi Yatani |e author |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | |a Critical review about two myths in fixed dental prostheses: Full-Coverage vs. Resin-Bonded, non-Cantilever vs. Cantilever |
| 260 | |b Elsevier, |c 2021-11-01T00:00:00Z. | ||
| 500 | |a 1882-7616 | ||
| 500 | |a 10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.12.002 | ||
| 520 | |a The purpose of this review was to assess the literature regarding four types of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)/resin-bonded FDPs (RBFDPs) to provide clinicians with a comparative overview of two myths: "RBFDPs are easy to debond in patients' mouths" and "cantilever RBFDPs still have some clinical problems, especially in terms of overloading the abutment teeth and being easy to debond". A total of 782 papers were identified, 753 of which were judged unsuitable and thus excluded, leaving a total of 29 articles for inclusion in this review. The results indicated that 1) Two-retainer RBFDPs achieve clinical results comparable to full-coverage three-unit FDPs; 2) Cantilever RBFDPs show excellent long-term clinical outcomes (especially in incisor teeth) compared with other FDPs; 3) RBFDPs typically show less catastrophic failure than conventional FDPs, rebonding should be considered when debonding occurs; and 4) Cantilever RBFDPs can be recommended as defect replacement prostheses for maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisor teeth.Scientific field: Prosthodontics, Adhesive dentistry, Esthetic dentistry | ||
| 546 | |a EN | ||
| 690 | |a Adhesive dentistry | ||
| 690 | |a Esthetic dentistry | ||
| 690 | |a Adhesion bridge | ||
| 690 | |a Dental bonding | ||
| 690 | |a Clinical outcome | ||
| 690 | |a Dentistry | ||
| 690 | |a RK1-715 | ||
| 655 | 7 | |a article |2 local | |
| 786 | 0 | |n Japanese Dental Science Review, Vol 57, Iss , Pp 33-38 (2021) | |
| 787 | 0 | |n http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761621000028 | |
| 787 | 0 | |n https://doaj.org/toc/1882-7616 | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doaj.org/article/8d3fd03a08bd4c2e9c5c99cd4c11135d |z Connect to this object online. |