Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region. / Bawa, Annika; Seth-Johansen, Chahak; Jensen, Simon Storgård; Gotfredsen, Klaus.

In: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2023, p. 1197-1206.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Bawa, A, Seth-Johansen, C, Jensen, SS & Gotfredsen, K 2023, 'Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region', Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1197-1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13266

APA

Bawa, A., Seth-Johansen, C., Jensen, S. S., & Gotfredsen, K. (2023). Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 25(6), 1197-1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13266

Vancouver

Bawa A, Seth-Johansen C, Jensen SS, Gotfredsen K. Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2023;25(6):1197-1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13266

Author

Bawa, Annika ; Seth-Johansen, Chahak ; Jensen, Simon Storgård ; Gotfredsen, Klaus. / Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region. In: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2023 ; Vol. 25, No. 6. pp. 1197-1206.

Bibtex

@article{9e21e377e45343e5a1a85819251f4b52,
title = "Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region",
abstract = "Background: Different treatment options exist for replacement of an anterior tooth, and as implant-supported single crowns (ISSC) and resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDPs) both are widespread treatment options, it is of clinical relevance to know which treatment modality can be considered superior. Purpose: The purpose of this comparative study was to evaluate the 3- and 5-year survival and failure rate of tooth-supported resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis compared to implant-supported single crowns. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in survival rate, occurrence of complications or patient-reported outcome between RBFDPs and ISSCs. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 resin-bonded FDPs were inserted in 27 young patients (test group) with tooth agenesis in the anterior part of the maxilla or mandible and a control group of 28 patients also with tooth agenesis in the anterior region but treated with 40 implant-supported single crowns were included in this study. All patients and treatments were followed with a baseline and a 3- or 5-year examination. All patients had to fill out an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire at baseline and at the 3- or 5-year examination. The restorations were evaluated according to the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS). Results: For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate, that is, four RBFDPs were not in situ after 3 years and four RBFDPs were not in situ after 5 years. Correspondingly, the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%, that is, only one failure (ceramic fracture) after 3 and none after 5 years. Of the 82% RBFDPs in situ, there were no complications in 78% of the cases, whereas 22% had complications after 3 (4 complications) and 5 years (4 complications). There were 92% of the ISSCs without any complications and 8% (ie, 3 ISSCs) with complications after 3 or 5 years. In general, there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores, for example, an improved oral health quality of life for both treatment options. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs. In general, the OHIP-scores were significantly reduced regardless of whether RBFDPs or ISSC were used.",
keywords = "agenesis, complication, implant-supported single crowns (ISSC), oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP), success, survival",
author = "Annika Bawa and Chahak Seth-Johansen and Jensen, {Simon Storg{\aa}rd} and Klaus Gotfredsen",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1111/cid.13266",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1197--1206",
journal = "Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research",
issn = "1523-0899",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region

AU - Bawa, Annika

AU - Seth-Johansen, Chahak

AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård

AU - Gotfredsen, Klaus

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Background: Different treatment options exist for replacement of an anterior tooth, and as implant-supported single crowns (ISSC) and resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDPs) both are widespread treatment options, it is of clinical relevance to know which treatment modality can be considered superior. Purpose: The purpose of this comparative study was to evaluate the 3- and 5-year survival and failure rate of tooth-supported resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis compared to implant-supported single crowns. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in survival rate, occurrence of complications or patient-reported outcome between RBFDPs and ISSCs. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 resin-bonded FDPs were inserted in 27 young patients (test group) with tooth agenesis in the anterior part of the maxilla or mandible and a control group of 28 patients also with tooth agenesis in the anterior region but treated with 40 implant-supported single crowns were included in this study. All patients and treatments were followed with a baseline and a 3- or 5-year examination. All patients had to fill out an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire at baseline and at the 3- or 5-year examination. The restorations were evaluated according to the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS). Results: For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate, that is, four RBFDPs were not in situ after 3 years and four RBFDPs were not in situ after 5 years. Correspondingly, the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%, that is, only one failure (ceramic fracture) after 3 and none after 5 years. Of the 82% RBFDPs in situ, there were no complications in 78% of the cases, whereas 22% had complications after 3 (4 complications) and 5 years (4 complications). There were 92% of the ISSCs without any complications and 8% (ie, 3 ISSCs) with complications after 3 or 5 years. In general, there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores, for example, an improved oral health quality of life for both treatment options. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs. In general, the OHIP-scores were significantly reduced regardless of whether RBFDPs or ISSC were used.

AB - Background: Different treatment options exist for replacement of an anterior tooth, and as implant-supported single crowns (ISSC) and resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDPs) both are widespread treatment options, it is of clinical relevance to know which treatment modality can be considered superior. Purpose: The purpose of this comparative study was to evaluate the 3- and 5-year survival and failure rate of tooth-supported resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis compared to implant-supported single crowns. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in survival rate, occurrence of complications or patient-reported outcome between RBFDPs and ISSCs. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 resin-bonded FDPs were inserted in 27 young patients (test group) with tooth agenesis in the anterior part of the maxilla or mandible and a control group of 28 patients also with tooth agenesis in the anterior region but treated with 40 implant-supported single crowns were included in this study. All patients and treatments were followed with a baseline and a 3- or 5-year examination. All patients had to fill out an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire at baseline and at the 3- or 5-year examination. The restorations were evaluated according to the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS). Results: For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate, that is, four RBFDPs were not in situ after 3 years and four RBFDPs were not in situ after 5 years. Correspondingly, the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%, that is, only one failure (ceramic fracture) after 3 and none after 5 years. Of the 82% RBFDPs in situ, there were no complications in 78% of the cases, whereas 22% had complications after 3 (4 complications) and 5 years (4 complications). There were 92% of the ISSCs without any complications and 8% (ie, 3 ISSCs) with complications after 3 or 5 years. In general, there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores, for example, an improved oral health quality of life for both treatment options. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs. In general, the OHIP-scores were significantly reduced regardless of whether RBFDPs or ISSC were used.

KW - agenesis

KW - complication

KW - implant-supported single crowns (ISSC)

KW - oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL)

KW - resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP)

KW - success

KW - survival

U2 - 10.1111/cid.13266

DO - 10.1111/cid.13266

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 37605324

AN - SCOPUS:85168436961

VL - 25

SP - 1197

EP - 1206

JO - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

JF - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

SN - 1523-0899

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 363674520