Clinical Assessment of Distal vs Mesial Single- Retainer Resin-Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures for Replacement of a Maxillary Lateral Incisor: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 1.8
Mohamed Abdalla Belead, Omaima Salah El Dein El Mahallawi, Gomaa Abdallah Soliman, Abdel Rahman Badran
{"title":"Clinical Assessment of Distal vs Mesial Single- Retainer Resin-Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures for Replacement of a Maxillary Lateral Incisor: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Mohamed Abdalla Belead, Omaima Salah El Dein El Mahallawi, Gomaa Abdallah Soliman, Abdel Rahman Badran","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare 1-year survival rates of zirconia single-retainer resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) on maxillary canines vs central incisors.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 54 multilayered, ultratranslucent zirconia single-retainer RBFPDs were placed in 50 patients, divided equally into two groups: an intervention group with a distal retainer (D-retainer) on the maxillary canine, and a control group with a mesial retainer (M-retainer) on the maxillary central incisor. Patients were followed up for 1 year. Survival was assessed by debonding, fracture, and abutment mobility using modified USPHS criteria. Patient satisfaction was measured via the visual analog scale (VAS). Fisher exact test was used for comparisons, and survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method (significance set at P ≤ .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The D-retainer group showed an 81% survival rate, with five cases experiencing two debondings. The M-retainer group had an 86% survival rate, with three cases debonding twice. Both groups showed high patient satisfaction and stable abutment mobility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, no difference was found between canine and central incisor abutments. Both designs showed excellent fracture resistance, stable mobility, and high satisfaction. Debonding was the only failure mode.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"616-624"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare 1-year survival rates of zirconia single-retainer resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) on maxillary canines vs central incisors.

Materials and methods: A total of 54 multilayered, ultratranslucent zirconia single-retainer RBFPDs were placed in 50 patients, divided equally into two groups: an intervention group with a distal retainer (D-retainer) on the maxillary canine, and a control group with a mesial retainer (M-retainer) on the maxillary central incisor. Patients were followed up for 1 year. Survival was assessed by debonding, fracture, and abutment mobility using modified USPHS criteria. Patient satisfaction was measured via the visual analog scale (VAS). Fisher exact test was used for comparisons, and survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method (significance set at P ≤ .05).

Results: The D-retainer group showed an 81% survival rate, with five cases experiencing two debondings. The M-retainer group had an 86% survival rate, with three cases debonding twice. Both groups showed high patient satisfaction and stable abutment mobility.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, no difference was found between canine and central incisor abutments. Both designs showed excellent fracture resistance, stable mobility, and high satisfaction. Debonding was the only failure mode.

远端与中端单固位树脂粘接固定义齿替代上侧切牙的临床评价:随机临床试验。
目的:本临床研究旨在比较二氧化锆单固位树脂粘接固定局部义齿(RBFPD)与上颌中切牙的1年生存率。材料和方法:将54个多层超半透明氧化锆单固位体rbfpd放置于50例患者中,平均分为两组:干预组在上犬牙上放置远端固位体(d -固位体),对照组在上中切牙上放置近端固位体(m -固位体)。患者随访一年。采用改良的USPHS标准,通过脱粘、骨折和基台活动性来评估生存。通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量患者满意度。比较采用Fisher精确检验,生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法(p≤0.05)。结果:d -固位组成活率81%,5例出现2次脱粘。m -固位组的存活率为86%,其中3例脱臼两次。两组患者满意度高,基台活动稳定。结论:在本研究的范围内,没有发现犬齿和中切牙基台之间的差异。两种设计均表现出优异的抗断裂性、稳定的流动性和高满意度。脱粘是唯一的失效模式。本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册(NCT05812066)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书