Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: To systematically review the failure rate and complications of different framework designs of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) in the anterior region. Methods: A systematic search for clinical studies on RBFDPs published prior to December 2014 in Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted and complemented by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared at least two RBFDP framework designs with a minimum of 2 years follow up were included in this review. The quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies and Cochrane Handbook for RCT. Prostheses-based data on reported failure rate/ survival rate, debonding, and fractures were analyzed by meta-analysis. Results: Of 1010 screened articles, one RCT and 4 cohort studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All included articles have a high risk of bias. Failure rates of single-retainer cantilever RBFDPs were lower than two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.94, P = 0.04). Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of failure rates between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.33-2.63, P = 0.89). Debonding was not significantly different between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.60, P = 0.32). Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of debonding between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.28-2.34, P = 0.70,). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, cantilever RBFDPs demonstrate lower clinical failure than two-retainer RBFDPs in the anterior region. The failure of metal-ceramic RBFDPs is independent of the framework design, while the failure of all-ceramic RBFDPs with different designs has not been clear yet. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.