Five‐year success rate of resin‐bonded fixed partial dentures: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the 5-year success rate of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) fabricated from different materials. METHODS: An electronic search on 3 databases from January 1965 to March of 2017 was done for human randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective and retrospective cohort studies. The key words used in the search were: Bridge OR bridges OR fixed partial OR fixed dental AND resin bonded OR Maryland OR ceramic bonded. Quality assessment was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Success was defined as the RBFPDs remaining in situ and not having experienced debonding, biological failures, or mechanical failures at the examination visit. RESULTS: Meta analyses of the included studies showed an estimated 5-year success rate of 88.18% for the metal framework RBFPDs and 84.41% for the nonmetal framework RBFPDs. The estimated 5-year success rate for each nonmetal material category was 92.07% for zirconia, 94.26% for In-Ceram alumina, and 84.83% for fiber-reinforced composite. The failure rate was not statistically significant among the single, double, and multiple retainers RBFPDs (P > .05). Technical complications were the main reason for failures. CONCLUSION: The 5-year clinical performance of RBFPDs is similar to the performance of conventional fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and implant-supported crowns. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should consider using RBFPDs more often because their clinical performance is similar to the performance of conventional FPDs and implant-supported crowns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".