These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Five year survival of posterior adhesive bridges. Influence of bonding systems and tooth preparation].
    Author: Creugers NH, de Kanter RJ, Verzijden CW, van 't Hof MA.
    Journal: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1999 Jul; 106(7):250-3. PubMed ID: 11930370.
    Abstract:
    The present study reports the final analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial in which different designs of posterior resin-bonded bridges were evaluated for a period of at least 5 years. The operational hypothesis was that the bonding system and the preparation design used in posterior resin-bonded bridges have an influence on the survival and clinical functioning of these restorations. Survival in this study was defined at two levels: (1) 'primary' survival (survival without any debonding), and (2) 'functional' survival (survival including loss of retention on one occasion and successful rebonding of the original resin-bonded bridge without further debonding). Preparation of grooves in abutment teeth for posterior resin-bonded bridges appeared to be beneficial to their chance of survival. Resin-bonded bridges placed in the maxilla have a better prognosis than those made in the mandible. The bonding systems used in this study (etching/Clearfil F2, sand blasting/Panavia EX and silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C) appear to have no influence on the chance of failure with regards to the 'primary' survival. In rebonded posterior resin-bonded bridges, the bonding system silica coating/Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other systems tested.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]