Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dentists often question the use of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) for reliable restoration of tooth-bound edentulous spaces. Initial attempts at bonding fixed partial dentures on teeth resulted in early failure due to debonding. In the 1980s and 1990s, improvements in preparation methods, metal alloys and bonding techniques made the RBFPD a more predictable option. In this paper, we summarize recent information concerning its success and failure. METHODS: A MEDLINE search using key words describing RBFPDs was carried out to identify pertinent English articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals since 2000. RESULTS: The principle reason for failure of RBFPDs remains debonding of the framework from the abutment teeth. Selection of nonmobile abutment teeth, preparation to enhance retention and resistance form, choice of the appropriate alloy and metal, and tooth bonding technique are the keys to success. The use of cantilever and nonrigid attachments may decrease interabutment forces and reduce debonding of retainers. CONCLUSIONS: The survival rate of RBFPDs is still considerably lower than that of conventional fixed partial dentures. Although RBFPDs can be used in both the anterior and posterior regions of the mouth to replace 1 or 2 missing teeth, careful abutment selection, tooth preparation, alloy selection and bonding technique are critical for clinical success.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".