Success, clinical performance and patient satisfaction of direct fibre‐reinforced composite fixed partial dentures – a two‐year clinical study

Abstract

To evaluate the success, clinical performance and patient satisfaction of directly placed fibre-reinforced composite (FRC) fixed partial dentures (FPDs) in 2 years. One hundred sixty-seven FRC FPDs (120 subjects) were directly fabricated to restore a single missing tooth by six Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) residents. The FRC FPDs recipients were randomised into two groups according to the fibre materials (pre-impregnated glass or polyethylene). Clinical performance was evaluated at baseline (2 weeks), 6, 12 and 24 months by two calibrated evaluators for prosthesis adaptation, colour match, marginal discoloration, surface roughness, caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United State Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Prosthesis appearance, colour, chewing ability and overall satisfaction were evaluated by patients using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Kaplan-Meier estimation was used to estimate the prosthesis success. Ninety-four patients with 137 FRC FPDs returned (21·67% attrition rate for study subjects, 17·94% for FRC FPDs). Seventeen FRC FPDs failed, due to one-end (n = 4) or two-ends (n = 4) debonding or pontic fracture (n = 9). The cumulative 2-year success rate was 84·32% and survival rate was 92·7%; there were no statistically significant differences between the groups according to different missing tooth location, retention type or fibre materials (P > 0·05). Patient satisfaction regarding prosthesis appearance, col-our, chewing ability and overall satisfaction was rated high on the VAS (mean >80 mm) for all criteria at all time points. The FRC FPDs (restoring single tooth) fabricated by AEGD residents achieved acceptable success and survival rates in a 2-year follow-up.

Direct Fiber‐Reinforced Interim Fixed Partial Dentures: Six‐Year Survival Study

“…The bonding surface on the anterior teeth was also smaller than the entire bonding surface of the inlay cavities. A recent study reports the great success of the FRC‐FPD after a 2‐year follow‐up …”

“…Direct FRC FDPs can be reliable treatment options for replacement of single missing teeth in some anterior and posterior areas. 6,12,14,16,18,19 Some in vitro studies have shown that inlay box preparations, 7,20 the length of the glass fibers, 4,21 and the design of various pontics 22 influenced FRC-FPD's resistance to fracture. After reporting an improvement of removable denture fracture strength by using glass fiber reinforcements 23 the research question for this study was: what would be the in vivo behavior of anterior and posterior d-FRC-FPDs?…”

“…Combining the results of these studies to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of FRC FPDs is challenging . Few studies have investigated the survival and success rate of indirect FPDs and even fewer clinical investigations related to the survival of the direct FRC FPDs . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival of anterior and posterior direct glass FRC FPDs (d‐FRC‐FPDs).…”

Treatment of Pediatric Patients with Lost Anterior Teeth Due to Trauma: A Report of Two Cases on Alternative, Practical and Temporary Approaches

“…Despite the fact that in the earlier studies, limited load-bearing capacity was reported as a disadvantage of FRC fixed partial prosthesis and most common failures in FRC was reported as delamination of veneering composite at pontic area, the recent studies indicates that survival rate is quite high up to five years, which reflects material development and learning of fabricating FRC FPDs. 15,[25][26][27] This clinical report presented two cases in which FRC fixed partial prosthesis were successfully used to restore anterior edentulous spaces by using a natural tooth and a composite crown as a pontic. Fiber reinforced composite resin bridges can be used for temporary restorations up to the completion of the development and growth in pediatric dentistry as a lead until implant or conventional prosthetic therapy.…”

“…3,25 In the present cases, the preparations of the two abutment teeth were performed according to the literature minimally and confined to enamel, it was a noninvasive approach. Further more for deciding the treatment option, the parental cooperation was held and they stated that their children could dislike wearing removable prosthesis and they preferred an adhesive bridge taking in to account the remaking more than one time until the completion of the growth period.…”