Abstract
Background: Resin bonded bridges (RBB) was introduced as an alternative to conventional bridges for tooth replacement under certain clinical conditions. It was designed as a temporary restoration which is reversible and the clinicians’ major concern has been its longevity. The major cause of failure was attributed to de-bonding caused by complex multi- directional inter-abutment stresses associated with the 3-unit bridge that challenges the retainer and adhesive bond. The study aimed to assess the attitude, knowledge and practice of resident doctors on the performance factors of RBB.
Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted amongst residents at an update course using self – administered questionnaires. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to
participants’ socio-demographics, intended area of expertise, years of experience and percentage of RBBs performed in their clinical prosthodontic / restorative practice. The second part of the questionnaire comprised close-ended multiple-choice questions which were designed to extract the opinion and understanding of the respondents regarding performance factor for RBBs. The questions were related to clinical indications, prosthesis design etc
Results: Eighty percent of the participants indicated that had <10% tooth replacement service was done with RBB, 44.7% of the respondents considered RBB as a provisional restoration while 28 (36.8%) regarded RBB as both provisional and permanent restoration. About 76% of the respondents believe that perforated retainers were associated with clinical success of RBBs. 70% considered anterior maxilla as the most favorable location while class 1 jaw relation was preferred by 60% of participants
Conclusion: With less than 10% of teeth replacement done using RBBs, there is a need for continuing education opportunities for practicing dentists and better exposure of undergraduate and postgraduate students to clinical application of RBBs.
Keywords: Perception, practice, resident doctors, resin bonded, bridges
Abstrait
Contexte : Ponts liant à résine (RBB) a été présenté comme une alternative aux ponts conventionnels pour le remplacement des dents dans certaines conditions cliniques. Il a été conçu comme une restauration provisoire réversible et la principale préoccupation des cliniciens est sa longévité. La principale cause de défaillance a été attribuée au décollement provoqué par des stresses complexes multidirectionnels interpiliers associées au pont à 3 unités qui met au défi le dispositif de retenue et la liaison adhésive. L’étude visait à évaluer l’attitude, la connaissance et la pratique des médecins résidents en ce qui concerne les facteurs de performance de RBB.
Méthodes : Une étude transversale menée auprès des résidents lors d’un cours de mise à jour à l’aide de questionnaires auto-administrés. La première partie du questionnaire comportait des questions liées au développement sociodémographiques des participants, domaine d’expertise destiné, années d’expérience et le pourcentage de RBB effectuées dans leur clinique prothétiques / pratique réparatrice. La deuxième partie du questionnaire comporte des questions à choix multiples à extrémité fermée qui ont été conçus pour extraire l’opinion et la compréhension du répondant en ce qui concerne le facteur de performance pour RBB. Les questions portaient sur les indications cliniques, la conception de la prothèse, etc.
Résultats : Quatre-vingts pourcent des participants ont indiqué que <10% de service de remplacement de dent a été fait avec RBB, 44,7% des répondants considèrent RBB comme une restauration provisoire tandis que 28 (36,8%) ont considéré RBB comme la restauration provisoire et permanente à la fois. Environ 76% des répondants croient que les dispositifs de retenue perforés ont été associés à la réussite clinique de RBB. 70% considéraient le maxillaire antérieur comme l’emplacement le plus favorable, tandis que 60% des participants préféraient une relation de la mâchoire de classe 1
Conclusion : Avec moins de 10% des remplacements de dents effectués à l’aide de RBB, il est nécessaire que les dentistes praticiens puissent poursuivre leurs études et de mieux exposer les étudiants en licence et en maitrise à l’application clinique de RBB.
Mots clés : Perception et pratique des ponts liés en résine
Correspondence: Dr. IM.F. Abiodun-Solanke, Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. E-mail: abisolimf@yahoo.ca
Referenser
Ulna Lally. Resin –bonded fixed partial dentures past and present – an overview. J Irish Dent Assoc 2013, 58 (6): 294-300.
Ibbetson R. Clinical considerations for adhesive bridge work. Dent Update 2004, 31:254-265.
Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Tan K, Bragger U, et al. A Systematic review of the survival and complication rates of resin- bonded bridges after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 131-141.
Howard-Bowles E, McKenna G and Allen F. An evidence based approach for the provision of resin-bonded bridgework. Eur J.Prosthodont Restor. Dent 2011; 19: 99-104.
Mieltinen Mimillar BJ. A review of the success and failure characteristics of resin –bonded bridges. Br Dent J 2013; 215: 76-77.
Sanjeev M, Sandeep Garg, Navsharanjit K C and Monika J. Resin bonded bridge: Conservative Treatment option for Single Tooth Replacement. J Clin Case Rep 2013; 3: (3)
Dalin AV, Feilzer AJ and Kleverlaan CJ. A Literature review of two-unit cantilever FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 281-284.
Briggs P, Dunne S and Bishop K. The single unit, single retainer, cantilever resin-bonded bridge. Br Dent J 1996; 181: 373-379.
Bothelo MG, Nor LC, Kwong HN and Kuein BS. Two-unit cantilever resin-bonded fixed partial dentures- a retrospective, preliminary clinical investigation. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 25- 28.
Clare M, Serpil D and Graham G. Predictable Resin Bonded Bridges in General Dental Practice. Dental Update. 2001; 28:501-508.
Djemal S, Setchell D, King P and Wickersi J. Long-term survival characteristics of 832 resin retained bridges and splints provided in a post-graduate teaching hospital between 1978 and 1983. J Oral Rehab 1999; 26: 302-320.
Ibrahim A A, Byine D, Hussey DI and Claffey N. Bond strengths of maxillary anterior base metal resin-bonded retainers with different thickness. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:281-285.
Vohra FA and Al-Qahtani MA. Attitude and awareness of dentists towards resin bonded bridges in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2014;26:96-102.
Madfa AA, Al- Hamzi MA, Al Sanabani FA and Al-Anesi WA. Knowledge of Yemeni Dental Practitioners towards Resin Bonded Prosthesis. EC Dental Science 2017;10(2):46-52
Chan AW and Barnes IE. A prospective study of cantilever resin bonded bridges; an initial report. Aust Dent J 2000;45:31-36.
Olin PS, Hill EM and Donahue JL. Clinical evaluation of resin- bonded bridges: a retrospective study. Quintessence Int 1991;22:873-877.
Van Dalen A, Feilzer AJ and Kleverlaan CJ. A literature review of two-unit cantilevered fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:281-284.
Ken M. Clinical long term survival of two retainer and single –retainer all ceramic resin bonded fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2005; 36:141-147.
Patsiatzi E and Grey NJ. An investigation of aspects of design of resin bonded bridges in general dental practice and hospital services. Prim Dent Care 2004;11: 87-89.
King PA, Foster LV, Yates RJ, Newcombe RG and Garrett MJ. Survival characteristics of 771 resin retained bridges provided at a UK dental teaching Hospital. Br Dent J 2015;218(7):423-427.
Livaditis GJ, Thompson VP. Etched castings, an improved retentive mechanism for resin-bonded retainer. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47:52-58..
De Kanter RJ, Creugers NH and Verzijdenco VantHorf MA. A five year multipractice clinical study on posterior resin –bonded bridges. J Dent Res 1998; 77:609-614.
Baltelha M. Design principles for cantilevered resin-bonded partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2000; 31: 613-619.
Zalkind m et al. Resin bonded fixed partial denture retention: A retrospective 13 year follow-up. J Oral Rehabilitation 2003; 30 (10):971-977.
Durey KA, Nixon PJ, Robinson S and Chan MF. Resin bonded bridges: techniques for success. Br Dent J 2011; 211 (3):113-118.
Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, Pihlstrom DJ, Amundson CW and Gordan V.V. Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the Dental PBRN. Oper Dent 2010; 35(5):491-499.