Critical review about two myths in fixed dental prostheses: Full-Coverage vs. Resin-Bonded, non-Cantilever vs. Cantilever
Atsushi Mine, Masanori Fujisawa, Shoko Miura, Masahiro Yumitate, Shintaro Ban, Azusa Yamanaka, Masaya Ishida, Jun Takebe, Hirofumi Yatani
Abstract
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.