Critical review about two myths in fixed dental prostheses: Full-Coverage vs. Resin-Bonded, non-Cantilever vs. Cantilever

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to assess the literature regarding four types of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)/resin-bonded FDPs (RBFDPs) to provide clinicians with a comparative overview of two myths: “RBFDPs are easy to debond in patients’ mouths” and “cantilever RBFDPs still have some clinical problems, especially in terms of overloading the abutment teeth and being easy to debond”. A total of 782 papers were identified, 753 of which were judged unsuitable and thus excluded, leaving a total of 29 articles for inclusion in this review. The results indicated that 1) Two-retainer RBFDPs achieve clinical results comparable to full-coverage three-unit FDPs; 2) Cantilever RBFDPs show excellent long-term clinical outcomes (especially in incisor teeth) compared with other FDPs; 3) RBFDPs typically show less catastrophic failure than conventional FDPs, rebonding should be considered when debonding occurs; and 4) Cantilever RBFDPs can be recommended as defect replacement prostheses for maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisor teeth. Scientific field: Prosthodontics, Adhesive dentistry, Esthetic dentistry

Biomechanical behavior of posterior metal-free cantilever fixed dental prostheses: effect of material and retainer design

“…Cantilever RBFDPs provide several advantages, including the conservation of tooth structure, easier maintenance of oral hygiene, and low cost [9]. It was previously considered that with a single retainer, the pontic always displaces with its abutment tooth, preventing shear and torque loads that could eventually lead to debonding [10,11].…”

"Comparison of Two Types of Dual Resin Cements in Cantilever Dental Bridge Compressive Stress Distribution: Finite Element Analysis"

“…Nowadays, it has become common to find young patients with missing teeth [1]. In these cases, dental implants are the first option [2], since they have a high success rate (94%) [3] and allow aesthetically pleasing results to be achieved [4]; however, it is an expensive treatment [5]; therefore, as an alternative, the resinbonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDP) can be used [6]. The latter is characterized by the fact that, unlike the conventional fixed the abutment teeth [7]; in addition, it is economical compared to the implant [5].…”

“…The latter is characterized by the fact that, unlike the conventional fixed the abutment teeth [7]; in addition, it is economical compared to the implant [5]. RBFDPs began to be known in the world of dentistry in the 1970s [8] and their design evolved over time [6]. Within this group, we can mention the Maryland bridge, [6] which was created by professors from the university of the same name [9] and its main characteristic is to have two palatal retainers; There is also the cantilever, whose peculiarity is based on the possession of a single palatal retainer [6].…”

“…RBFDPs began to be known in the world of dentistry in the 1970s [8] and their design evolved over time [6]. Within this group, we can mention the Maryland bridge, [6] which was created by professors from the university of the same name [9] and its main characteristic is to have two palatal retainers; There is also the cantilever, whose peculiarity is based on the possession of a single palatal retainer [6]. Currently, they are used to replace missing teeth in the anterior sector [10]; however, at some point an attempt was made to extend their indication to the posterior sector [11],…”

“…The union of the adhesive fixed prosthesis is mainly based on adhesion [6]; for this reason, the choice of cement is important. This is evidenced in a variety of systematic reviews, where it is detailed that the most recurrent cause of failure for this type of prosthesis is detachment (33.7%) [14].…”