Case Study

Resin Bonded Zirconia Bridge: Case Report Follow Up of 7 Years

Houda Moussaoui
University Hassan II, Morocco
Abdallah Mouhibi
University Hassan II, Morocco
* Corresponding author
Meriem Oualla
University Hassan II, Morocco
Abderrahman Andoh
University Hassan II, Morocco
DOI icon 10.24018/ejdent.2022.3.4.185

Read Counter
209

Downloads
137

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-03-29
Published 2022-10-06

Read counter = 209 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Conventional bridges are considered the standard treatment for single missing teeth with a good clinical outcome, but it is an invasive treatment.

The introduction of new ceramic materials becomes a useful treatment option for premolar and molar replacement, and high demand of conservative restoration with metal free materials has become more important for both, clinicians and patients.

The present article is a case report that present a patient who was treated by a resin-bonded zirconia bridge showing a follow up of seven years.

Keywords: Bridge, esthetic, follow up, resin bonded, zirconia

References

  1. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 (Suppl. 6): 2–21.
     Google Scholar
  2. Layton D. A critical appraisal of the survival and complication rates of tooth-supported all-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: the application of evidence-based dentistry. Int J Prosthodont. 2011; 24: 417–427.
     Google Scholar
  3. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 503–509.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bergenholtz G, Nyman S. Endodontic complications following periodontal and prosthetic treatment of patients with advanced periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 1984; 55: 64–68.
     Google Scholar
  5. Jokstad A, Mjor IA. Ten year’s clinical evaluation of three luting cements. J. Dent. 1996; 24: 309–315.
     Google Scholar
  6. Stokholm R, Isidor F. Resin-bonded inlay retainer prostheses for posterior teeth. A 5-year clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 1996; 9 (2): 161–166.
     Google Scholar
  7. Rathmann F, Bomicke W, Rammelsberg P, Ohlmann B. Veneered zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses: 10-year results from a prospective clinical study. J Dent. 2017; 64: 68–72.
     Google Scholar
  8. Kern M. Bonding to oxide ceramics - laboratory testing versus clinical outcome. Dent. Mater. 2015; 31: 8–14.
     Google Scholar
  9. Bindl A, Lüthy H, Mormann WH. Fracture load of CAD/CAM-generated slot-inlay FPDs. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16: 653–660.
     Google Scholar
  10. Puschmann D, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Load-bearing capacity of all-ceramic posterior inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009; 117: 312–318.
     Google Scholar
  11. Chen J, Cai H, Suo L, Xue Y, Wang J, Wan Q. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2017; 59: 2–10.
     Google Scholar
  12. Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. Metal-free inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32: 269–281.
     Google Scholar
  13. Ohlmann B, Rammelsberg P, Schmitter M, Schwarz S, Gabbert O. All-ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial dentures: preliminary results from a clinical study. J Dent. 2008; 36: 692–696.
     Google Scholar
  14. Harder S, Wolfart S, Eschbach S, Kern M. Eight-year outcome of posterior inlay-retained all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2010; 38: 875–881.
     Google Scholar
  15. Wolfart S, Bohlsen F, Wegner SM, Kern M. A preliminary prospective evaluation of all-ceramic crown-retained and inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18: 497–505.
     Google Scholar
  16. Wolfart S, Kern M. A new design for all-ceramic inlay-retained FPDs. A report of two cases. Quintessence Int. 2006; 37: 27–33.
     Google Scholar
  17. Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Uphaus A, Kern M. Fracture strength of all-ceramic posterior inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater. 2007; 23: 1513–1520.
     Google Scholar
  18. Mohsen CA. Fracture resistance of three ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture designs. An in vitro comparative study. J Prosthodont. 2010; 19: 531–535.
     Google Scholar
  19. Bishti S, Jakel C, Kern M, Wolfart S. Influence of different preparation forms on the loading-bearing capacity of zirconia cantilever FDPs. A laboratory study. J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 347–353.
     Google Scholar
  20. Abou Tara M, Eschbach S, Wolfart S, Kern M. Zirconia ceramic inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses, first clinical results with a new design. J Dent. 2011; 39: 208–211.
     Google Scholar
  21. Bomicke W, Karl J, Rammelsberg P. Minimally invasive prosthetic restoration of posterior tooth loss with resin-bonded, wing-retained, and inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses fabricated from monolithic zirconia: a clinical report of two patients. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 459–462.
     Google Scholar
  22. Chaar MS, Kern M. Five-year clinical outcome of posterior zirconia ceramic inlay-retained FDPs with a modified design. J Dent. 2015; 43: 1411–1415.
     Google Scholar
  23. Castillo-Oyagüe R, Sancho-Esper R, Lynch CD, Suarez-Garcia MJ. All-ceramic inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses for replacing posterior missing teeth: a systematic review. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 10–23.
     Google Scholar
  24. Lam WY, Botelho MG, McGrath CP. Longevity of implant crowns and 2-unit cantilevered resin- bonded bridges. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24 (12): 1369-74.
     Google Scholar
  25. Naderi SH, Bestwick JP, Wald DS. Adherence to drugs that prevent cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis on 376,162 patients. Am J Med. 2012; 125(9): 882–887.e1.
     Google Scholar