Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Tan K, Brägger U, Zwahlen M, Lang NP 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 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01527.x
King PA, Foster LV, Yates RJ, Newcombe RG, Garrett MJ Survival characteristics of 771 resin-retained bridges provided at a UK dental teaching hospital. Br Dent J. 2015; 218:423-428 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.250
Davis DM, Fiske J, Scott B, Radford DR The emotional effects of tooth loss in a group of partially dentate people: a quantitative study. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2001; 188:53-57 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800522
Wassell RW, St George G, Ingledew RP, Steele JG Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: provisional restorations. Br Dent J. 2002; 192:619-622 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801443
Oosterkamp BC, Dijkstra PU, Remmelink HJ, van Oort RP, Sandham A Orthodontic space closure versus prosthetic replacement of missing upper lateral incisors in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010; 47:591-596 https://doi.org/10.1597/09-092
Dudding T, Martin S, Popat S An introduction to the UK care pathway for children born with a cleft of the lip and/or palate. Br Dent J. 2023; 234:943-946 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5998-z
Diangelis AJ, Andreasen JO, Ebeleseder KA International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries: 1. Fractures and luxations of permanent teeth. Dent Traumatol. 2012; 28:2-12
Andersson L, Andreasen JO, Day P, Heithersay G International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries: 2. Avulsion of permanent teeth. Dent Traumatol. 2012; 28:88-96 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2012.01125.x
Srinivas B, Das P, Rana MM, Qureshi AQ, Vaidya KC, Ahmed Raziuddin SJ Wound healing and bone regeneration in postextraction sockets with and without platelet-rich fibrin. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 8:28-34 https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_153_17
Craddock HL, Youngson CC, Manogue M, Blance A Occlusal changes following posterior tooth loss in adults. Part 2. Clinical parameters associated with movement of teeth adjacent to the site of posterior tooth loss. J Prosthodont. 2007; 16:495-501 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00223.x
Poyser NJ, Porter RW, Briggs PF, Chana HS, Kelleher MG The Dahl Concept: past, present and future. Br Dent J. 2005; 198:669-676 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4812371
Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG, Sheridan JJ Orthodontic retention and stability: a clinical perspective. J Clin Orthod. 2007; 41:125-132
Collins JM, Witcher TP, Jones VS, Noar JH, Naini FB An alternative retainer design for cleft patients: the ‘aesthetic’ retainer. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010; 47:597-599 https://doi.org/10.1597/09-228
Patil BC., Jha A Retention protocol following post-orthodontic treatment in cleft palate patients – a review. J Contemp Orthod. 2022; 6:79-84 https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.2022.015
Dhole P, Maheshwari D Two-phase orthodontic treatment in a unilateral cleft lip and palate patient with 1-year follow-up results. APOS Trends Orthod. 2017; 7:101-107 https://doi.org/10.4103/apos.apos_5_17
Gill DS, Naini FB, Jones A, Tredwin CJ Part-time versus full-time retainer wear following fixed appliance therapy: a randomized prospective controlled trial. World J Orthod. 2007; 8:300-306
Shaha M, Varghese R, Atassi M Understanding the impact of removable partial dentures on patients' lives and their attitudes to oral care. Br Dent J. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2949-4
Leven AJ, Preston AJ Conservative prosthetic rehabilitation of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Dent Update. 2016; 43:939-942 https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2016.43.10.939
Raj R, Mehrotra K, Narayan I, Gowda TM, Mehta DS Natural tooth pontic: an instant esthetic option for periodontally compromised teeth – a case series. Case Rep Dent. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8502927
Kermanshah H, Motevasselian F Immediate tooth replacement using fiber-reinforced composite and natural tooth pontic. Oper Dent. 2010; 35:238-245 https://doi.org/10.2341/09-136-S
Banerji S, Sethi A, Dunne SM, Millar BJ Clinical performance of Rochette bridges used as immediate provisional restorations for single unit implants in general practice. Br Dent J. 2005; 199:771-775 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4813027
Resin-bonded bridges or resin-retained bridges (RRBs) are considered acceptable fixed prostheses for single-unit spaces in the aesthetic zone, often resulting from hypodontia or trauma. They may be used as medium-to long-term treatment options and can precede implant placement for young patients. Provisional tooth replacement before this treatment modality is not always thought to be necessary, but is often seen as appropriate. This article explores the various provisional options for single/multiple tooth space scenarios, their functional and aesthetic considerations, the risks and benefits, alongside their possible impact on the final restoration.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Various techniques available to provisionalize RRBs to aid in RRB case planning are described.
Article
Resin-bonded bridges or resin-retained bridges (RRBs) are prostheses that require no or minimal preparation and rely on the bonding of a metal or ceramic wing to a tooth through resin cements. Developed from Rochette bridges, which have perforated metal wings to create retention, then Maryland bridges when electrochemical etching of metal allowed non-perforated wings to be used, their success rates have increased to nearly that of conventional bridge work.1,2 Now bridges constructed from zirconia are being incorporated into dental practice.
King et al reported on the survival of resin-retained bridgework, stating the highest survival rates were in single cantilever resin-bonded bridges clear of heavy occlusal force with stable abutments.3 However, they noted that where orthodontic treatment has preceded bridgework in hypodontia patients, double abutments have a much higher survival rates.
Therefore, case selection and planning are highly important for such restorations, and should take into consideration: the number of missing teeth; the quality of the abutments; prior treatment; the patient's aesthetic/functional demands (such as gingival profile, smile line, static and dynamic occlusion); and any subsequent treatment plans.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
