Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures--a literature review with presentation of a novel approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) have been in our profession for over 20 years. The aim of this work was to provide some background about their development and the factors that influence their clinical longevity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A recent literature search conducted using MEDLINE along with analysis of bibliographies of published papers revealed a considerable number of publications of RBFPDs since their first introduction in the mid-1970s. Critical analysis of these publications revealed some important and interesting key facts. These were divided into sections about developments in the treatment of the fit surface of the casting, bonding systems, and prosthesis design. A separate section about factors that affect the longevity of RBFPDs is included, along with a detailed description of preparation designs of an anterior and a posterior RBFPD. RESULTS: The typical design of RBFPDs is characterized by a high degree of conservation of tooth structure of abutments compared with designs of conventional fixed prostheses. While the early RBFPDs were associated with a high frequency of premature failure--mostly because of debonding--developments in preparation design and bonding techniques as well as better understanding of the appropriate type of metal alloy to be used and the best preparation method for enhanced bonding have led to significant improvements in their long-term survival. CONCLUSION: RBFPDs should be considered viable treatment options for those clinical situations that are best suited for their use. Preparation design, cement type, and casting alloy type as well as surface treatment are among the most important factors that influence longevity of RBFPDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".