Abstract
A resin-bonded bridge is a dental procedure used to restore missing teeth. They consist of a porcelain or metal crown attached to a framework, and the composite resin is used to bind the framework to the patient’s natural teeth. The first resin-based bridges (RBBs) were created in the 1970s to replace traditional dental bridges. Since then, they have gained favor as a viable treatment option due to their improved aesthetics and reduced invasiveness compared to traditional dental bridges.
However, there is also a chance that RBBs are not as long-lasting as traditional dental bridges, require more maintenance, and wear out sooner. Additionally, they may only work for some. According to the studies, RBBs have an excellent success rate and can last long after being implanted as a therapeutic alternative for replacing missing teeth. Patients should discuss the range of treatment options available with their dentists and carefully evaluate the benefits against any potential downsides.
RBBs offer a more conservative option for restoring edentulous gaps than traditional bridges. However, ever since their introduction, rising debonding rates and subpar durability have been the primary concerns regarding their work. Clinical success requires the identification of high-risk cases, appropriate assessment, optimal bridge design, maximum tooth coverage, and precise healthcare delivery.
Introduction
A resin-bonded bridge is a specific type of dental bridge that can be used to repair one or more missing teeth. It is composed of an artificial tooth linked to a framework made of metal or porcelain. This false tooth is referred to as a pontic tooth. The framework is then attached to the natural teeth on either side of the gap using resin, which functions as an adhesive to keep the bridge in place and works as a bond between the natural teeth and the framework.
RBBs were first made available as an alternative to traditional bridges in the 1970s, according to Durey et al. (2011). The authors argue that dental practitioners initially resisted using RBBs due to concerns about their longevity and endurance. RBBs, on the other hand, gained acceptability and appeal as a viable treatment option for restoring missing teeth as manufacturing techniques and materials improved.
RBB’s effectiveness is contingent on several elements, the most important of which are the general condition of the patient’s teeth and gums, the accurate positioning and fitting of the bridge, and the patient’s capacity to practice good oral hygiene. If these conditions are met, replacing missing teeth with an RBB is an effective and long-lasting option. Nevertheless, it is equally susceptible to failure for many causes. Among these are faulty placement or fit of the bridge, insufficient resin bonding, and inadequate oral hygiene on the part of the patient. If it breaks, it must either be replaced or repaired.
RBBs emerged at the end of the 20th century as a replacement for traditional dental bridges, which involve filing down healthy teeth on either side of the gap. Its invention was motivated by the need to find a less invasive method of replacing missing teeth. They wanted to enhance the cosmetic appeal of dental bridges (RBBs). RBBs are also preferable to cosmetics because the composite resin can be colored to match the patient’s teeth.
RBBs have become more robust and will survive longer due to improvements in building techniques and materials. Many people nowadays are looking for a way to replace lost teeth and restore their oral health and function, and RBBs are a perfect option. Since RBBs resemble, feel, and function much like natural teeth, they are becoming increasingly popular.
Previous frameworks were composed of glass-infiltrated aluminum oxide ceramic. Materials constructed from yttrium tetragonal zirconia polycrystals, such as Lava (3M ESPE) and Cercon (Degudent), have recently acquired prominence (Leung et al., 2022). Unfortunately, bonding material typically only lasts three to ten years before needing to be replaced or maintained.
Bonded bridges involve several operations, although they are usually performed over the course of several consultations with minimal discomfort to the patient. The diagnostic approach began with a clinical evaluation involving recording photographs, radiographs, and dental models. The clinical case determines how this data is used to develop a treatment strategy and make necessary preparations. Patients may be advised to undergo orthodontic or gum graft treatments at some point during their care, which could significantly increase the total treatment period.
In the second stage of treatment, the patient’s teeth are cleaned, and then an impression is made, or a digital scan is used to produce a model. Since the dental laboratory is responsible for developing and producing the bonded bridge, any data gathered must be transferred there. At the conclusion of the clinical process, the adhesive resin will securely link the bridge together. Sandblasting or chemical etching can provide a rougher surface on the bridge and the abutment tooth. The dental bridge is then bonded to the tooth with a strong dental adhesive.
Design
Cantilever
They are designed by gluing a metal or ceramic framework to the teeth that will act as abutments. A fake tooth composed of resin can then be anchored into position in the empty socket. Permanent and removable RBBs are the two most frequent forms. The teeth that support the bridge, known as abutment teeth, become permanently attached to the resin bridge. On the other hand, it can be removed from the mouth by the patient for cleaning and maintenance. As Durey et al. (2011) argued, RBBs offer several advantages over conventional bridges, including less tooth reduction and a streamlined procedure that can be completed in just one session.
RBB can be set up in less time than conventional bridges. However, they caution that its effectiveness is contingent upon certain conditions being met. These conditions include proper abutment tooth preparation, sufficient bond strength, and regular patient maintenance. RBBs are a viable option for patients missing front teeth with healthy abutment teeth, as Ibbetson (2018) mentions the importance of precise diagnosis and meticulous treatment planning. He says there should be no evidence of decay, periodontal disease, or tooth movement in the abutment teeth, as all of these can affect the bridge’s longevity.
Additionally, he warns that individuals with bruxism may not be suitable candidates for an RBB, as their reflexive teeth grinding and biting could weaken the bridge’s foundation. In their review of the research on RBBs, Miettinen and Millar (2013) found that these restorations have a high overall success rate, with a 5-year survival rate of up to 89%. The research showed this result. The most common reason for failure was the framework coming loose from the abutment teeth, followed by fracture or wear of the resin-bonded tooth.
Hybrid Bridge
A hybrid bridge is a dental restoration that combines the best features of traditional bridgework and implant-retained restorations. Artificial teeth are attached to a metal or porcelain framework, and the whole thing is secured in the jaw using implants (Quigley et al., 2021). A hybrid bridge may be used when a patient is missing teeth in an area of the mouth that lacks sufficient bone density to support dental implants. Old-fashioned implant-supported bridges necessitate more invasive surgery than these modern options, but they offer the same stability and endurance.
A hybrid bridge’s advantages lie in its being anchored to the jawbone by dental implants, making it highly stable and long-lasting. As a result, hybrid bridges are gaining popularity. This approach also yields a more visually pleasing appearance, as the pontic can be created to match the color of the natural teeth (Quigley et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, a hybrid bridge requires the reduction of healthy teeth on either side of the gap. In contrast, only the teeth surrounding the gap in a traditional dental bridge need to be reshaped before the implant can be placed. Dental implant bridges are more invasive than traditional ones because they require the surgical installation of dental implants.
RBBs come in various types; for instance, in modern dentistry, the most common is the conventional variety. It consists of a pontic attached to a metal or porcelain framework (Botelho et al., 2014). Next, the framework is resin-bonded to the teeth on either side of the space. Winged bridge made of resin. RBBs like this one are very similar to the standard type; however, they differ in that they feature two short extensions, or wings, on either side of the pontic (Tanoue et al., 2021). These wings are used to help keep the bridge in place. Wings are often made from a composite resin and bonded to adjacent natural teeth.
This RBB is quite similar to conventional ones; however, unlike them, this form uses porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) for both the pontic and framework (Tanoue et al., 2021). RBBs made of porcelain fused with metal are remarkably similar to the conventional variety (Botelho et al., 2014). PFM is a hybrid material that combines the strength of metal with the elegance of porcelain. That is why it is a good option for those who want a bridge that blends in with the environment.
All-ceramic RBBs are created similarly to conventional ones; however, the pontic and framework are ceramic in this case. They are preferred by many because they are aesthetically pleasing and can be made to resemble natural teeth in terms of color and translucency (Botelho et al., 2014). However, they may not be as robust as bridges made from other materials.
Therefore, RBBs are a low-cost and less invasive option for replacing missing front teeth. Patients have many options, thanks to both the permanent and removable styles. Several factors determine whether a bridge will last, but the most critical are thorough abutment tooth preparation, adequate bond strength, and regular patient care. Furthermore, it is vital to perform proper diagnosis and treatment planning before placing the bridge. When evaluating abutment teeth, it is crucial to consider variables such as dental decay, periodontal disease, and tooth movement.
Advantages
RBBs are an excellent option for replacing missing teeth, as they offer numerous advantages. Compared to traditional dental bridges, they are much less intrusive because they do not necessitate any grinding down of the natural teeth on either side of the gap. As a result, they are advocated as a less extreme and intrusive option for people with healthy teeth. The dental structure is preserved, and a fixed solution for missing teeth is provided without compromising the abutments. This is the optimal treatment for young patients, as prolonged tooth preparation can cause endodontic issues. Treatment time is reduced, and costs are reduced with RBB (Durey et al., 2011).
Since the pontic in it can be designed to precisely match the shade of the neighboring teeth, this form of dental bridge is often considered to be the most aesthetically pleasing option. RBBs are a fast and easy way to replace missing teeth because they only require one dental visit for placement (Miettinen & Millar, 2013). They are an alternative for those on a tight budget because they are less expensive than other dental bridges. If they are appropriately placed and cared for regularly, they can replace missing teeth for many years (Miettinen & Millar, 2013). If individuals treat them right, they will last for years.
Disadvantages
Some downsides are associated with using an RBB to replace missing teeth. The number of situations in which a bridge supported by resin bonds would be suitable is limited; hence, their application is restricted. They are not an excellent choice to replace molars or teeth that take the brunt of the force during chewing. When utilized to replace the front teeth, they perform optimally (Creugers et al., 1998). Neglecting to maintain a high standard of oral hygiene may lead to resin bond failure and necessitate bridge repair if a patient fails to practice proper dental hygiene.
Recent in-depth research by Mine et al. (2021) has revealed several downsides and limitations associated with the use of RBBs. They should not be given to patients with bruxism since the constant biting and grinding of teeth can eventually weaken and break the bridge. This is arguably the most significant issue with them. They are not recommended for individuals with large diastemas or missing molars because they are designed to replace only one or a few teeth. This is because RBBs are meant to replace only one or a small number of teeth.
The disadvantage of RBBs is that they need healthy tooth structure on the abutment teeth to bond securely. That is another problem with these bridges that needs to be addressed. If the abutment teeth are too short or have extensive decay, it may not be an option. RBBs require regular care, including brushing, flossing, and rinsing with antibacterial mouthwash, just like natural teeth. Additionally, they have a lower load-bearing capacity and a higher risk of debonding and fracture compared to a full-coverage permanent dental prosthesis. Consequently, they are not ideal for patients with heavy occlusal loads.
RBBs may lose their original color over time, especially if the patient regularly consumes foods and drinks that stain. Like any other dental procedure, they are subject to the same wear and tear as natural teeth and may need to be replaced after a few years (Miettinen & Millar, 2013). They are less expensive than other dental bridges, but they are still a significant expenditure that may be out of reach for certain patients (Creugers et al., 1998). When an RBB is installed, there is a risk of damage to the patient’s healthy teeth and gums. Resin bonding can be hazardous to the patient’s teeth if performed incorrectly.
Success and Failure
Failure is frequently caused by the framework becoming loose from the abutment teeth, followed by the resin-bonded tooth shattering or becoming worn down. According to a study by Miettinen and Millar (2013), RBBs have a high overall success rate, with a five-year survival rate of up to 89%. Djemal et al. (1999) investigated the longevity of resin-retained bridges and discovered that after a decade, 84.5% of the bridges were still functioning normally.
On the other hand, regular patient maintenance was emphasized as critical to the bridge’s long-term viability. Kern et al. (2017) investigated the durability of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded permanent dental prostheses over time. When they examined the number of bridges that failed throughout the study, they found that only 2.7% of the bridges failed (Kern et al., 2017). However, it appears that the effectiveness of the bridge is affected by the reason for the incisors’ absence, with a higher failure rate in situations where the incisors were excised due to trauma or orthodontic therapy.
Thoma et al. (2017) investigated the success and complication rates of resin-bonded permanent dental prostheses in depth, conducting the study with a mean observation time of at least five years. According to the study, 92.2% of these bridges were still operating after 50 years, which is an astounding success rate. On the other hand, regular dental care and visits to a dentist were found to be crucial to the bridge’s durability.
Multiple researchers have examined the long-term success and complication rates of RBBs, based on studies that followed patients for at least five years. The study found an overall success rate of 92.6% and a failure rate of 7.4%. (Pjetursson et al., 2008) Recurrent occurrences of caries were the leading reason for failure (Pjetursson et al., 2008). To learn more about dentists’ opinions and familiarity with RBBs, Vohra and Al-Qahtani (2014) conducted a survey of dentists in Saudi Arabia. Even though most dentists had heard of the method, they were hesitant to use it because they did not think the restoration would hold up.
Case Analysis
Case 1
Mrs. Khsraw, 49 years old, has complained of pain in the upper left molar on her left side for some time. Her dentist finds that she has a minor cavity in one of her teeth after examining her. The cavity should be repaired with a composite resin filling, as recommended by the dentist after Mrs. Khsraw and he discussed the many available treatment options. The dentist prepares the tooth for treatment by removing the decayed portion and cleaning the surrounding area. After that, he mixes the composite resin properly according to the guidelines provided by the manufacturer. Then, he carefully fills up the cavity with it, molding it to conform to the natural contours of the tooth.
The composite resin is allowed to set, and then the dentist polishes the filling to produce a flawless finish that looks completely natural. Mrs. Khsraw is delighted with the outcomes of the composite resin filling, which she adds has eliminated her sensitivity. To ensure the filling remains in satisfactory condition, it is recommended that she maintain a consistent oral hygiene routine, including brushing, flossing, and regular dentist visits for checkups.
Case 2
Mr. Philip, who is 70 years old, has been missing his two top front teeth for several years. Since he feels self-conscious about his appearance, he has been seeking a way to replace his lost teeth. He has considered several options. Mr. Philip attempts a detachable RBB after consulting his dentist about the many treatment choices available. The pontic, often referred to as a false tooth, is the component of the removable RBB that is attached to the metal framework.
When using resin as the adhesive, the framework is affixed to the natural teeth on each side of the space. After that, the bridge as a whole is held in place with the help of a retainer that is placed over the patient’s natural teeth and is responsible for retaining the pontic. Mr. Philip is pleased with his removable RBB because it has improved his confidence in eating and speaking. Maintaining the bond requires consistent oral hygiene, including brushing, flossing, and regular dental checkups. Conveniently, the bridge can be removed and replaced if it wears out or sustains damage.
Factors Influencing the Success Rate
RBB lifespan is directly correlated to how well the patient maintains oral hygiene. If the patient practices consistent oral hygiene by brushing and flossing their teeth, the resin bonding holding the bridge in place runs the risk of failing due to gum disease (Ibbetson, 2018). An RBB’s correct placement and fit are crucial to its overall effectiveness (Ibbetson, 2018). The discomfort and difficulties in chewing that may arise from a bridge that is not fitted correctly or positioned are a real possibility.
The bite, or the relationship between the upper and lower teeth, is another factor. The patient’s edge may not be aligned correctly, which could increase the strain on the bridge and cause it to fail. The general health of the patient’s gums and teeth is another factor that determines the success. If an individual has gum disease or decay, the resin bonding may weaken, potentially leading to the bridge falling apart. Bad oral hygiene and behaviors, such as grinding one’s teeth or clenching one’s jaw, can also contribute to the premature failure.
Discussion
A dental bridge, commonly referred to as a composite RBB, can be used to replace one or more teeth that have been lost. To create this prosthesis, an artificial tooth is attached to a framework made of either metal or porcelain. The composite resin is the material of choice when securing the bridge’s framework to the teeth on each side of the space (Ibbetson, 2018). People with healthy teeth who want to avoid invasive treatments, such as those necessary for standard dental bridges, may consider composite RBBs as an alternative treatment option (Kumbuloglu & Özcan, 2015). Because composite resin can be tinted to closely resemble the color of natural teeth, it is also a more visually acceptable alternative.
On the other hand, one must remember its numerous drawbacks. In dentistry, composite RBBs may not have the same level of durability as their more traditionally crafted contemporaries. Additionally, individuals who frequently clench their jaws or grind their teeth are not ideal candidates for these bridges (Kumbuloglu & Özcan, 2015). They may not be as long-lasting or sturdy as other dental bridges, and they are more demanding in maintenance.
Before making a final choice, patients should have an open and honest conversation with their dentist about all the treatment choices available to them, including composite RBBs. Before making treatment recommendations, the dentist will consider several factors, including the patient’s overall dental health, the position and size of the missing teeth, and the patient’s financial situation.
An RBB, which can be removed and cleaned like regular dental fillings, is one option for replacing a missing tooth or teeth, recommended by dentists. To perform maintenance on the bridge, it can be disassembled (Besimo et al., 1997). This technique secures a pontic, or artificial tooth, to a metal support structure. The resin-bonded metal framework is then cemented to the teeth on either side of the gap. The bridge is then secured by placing a retainer over the patient’s natural teeth, holding the pontic in place (Kumbuloglu & Özcan, 2015). In the second half of the twentieth century, a technological breakthrough known as the removable RBB emerged.
This crossing was built more recently than its counterparts. It was developed as a substitute for conventional dental bridges, which require altering the structure of healthy teeth on each side of the gap to ensure the prosthetic is firmly in place. The resin-bonded detachable bridge avoids this issue because the framework is glued to the patient’s teeth rather than being removable (Zhang et al., 2020).
The teeth do not need to be significantly altered for this to be a viable option for placement in the mouth. The retention of a removable RBB is contingent upon the patient’s commitment to good oral hygiene, the bridge’s proper fit and position, and the patient’s dietary habits, such as grinding or clenching the teeth (Besimo et al., 1997). It is possible to extend the life of an RBB, which is easily detachable with proper maintenance.
Unfortunately, it is typical for the resin bonding to fail after some time, necessitating either replacement of the bridge or maintenance on the old one. Removable RBBs are convenient because the patient merely needs to place them in their mouth and use a retainer to keep them in place. Patients using bridges should brush and floss the pontic just as they would their natural teeth (Kumbuloglu & Özcan, 2015). The bridge can be removed and reinstalled for cleaning or repairs as needed. Additionally, the patient should schedule routine dental checkups to ensure the resin bonding is holding up and to address any issues that may arise.
Regarding practical solutions for restoring lost teeth, composite and removable RBBs are both viable possibilities (Kumbuloglu & Özcan, 2015). On the other hand, they may not be suitable for everyone and offer a different level of stability and longevity compared to a conventional dental bridge. Therefore, before making a choice, patients should consult their dentist about the various treatment options available and thoughtfully weigh the potential drawbacks against any potential benefits. Consistent checkups at the dentist and maintaining a high level of oral cleanliness are both necessary components to ensure the success and durability of any dental bridge.
Conclusion
Resin-bonded bridges are a common type of dental procedure used to restore a smile’s appearance and health by bridging the gap created by missing teeth. Indirect restorations are an integral component of any comprehensive dental care plan. These restorations can be placed in the front or back of the mouth. These reconstructions are less likely to last as long as traditional ones. Still, they are less expensive, easier on the teeth, do not require local anesthesia, and can be removed with minimal to no damage. Traditional restorations have a higher likelihood of long-term success. A standard bridge is distinct from a bonded bridge in several essential respects.
Since traditional bridges need the reduction of the teeth that act as supporting abutments, resulting in the irreversible loss of tooth enamel, when one gets a bonded bridge, the teeth will need very little to almost no enamel to be shaved off to accommodate the bridge. The bonded bridge requires less maintenance over time. Patients are often instructed to brush the region around the bridge with a regular toothbrush, an interproximal brush, and floss. This is done to remove plaque and bacteria that could cause infection. In addition to routine examinations, bridges also undergo regular monitoring.
Reference List
Abd Alraheam, I. et al. (2020) ‘Clinical performance of a modified resin‐bonded fixed partial denture (Carolina Bridge): A retrospective study,’ Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 33(3), pp. 480–486.
Barraclough, O., Dennis, T. and Patel, J. (2021) ‘Resin-retained bridges: Ten tips for success and an update on all-ceramic designs,’ Dental Update, 48(6), pp. 465–472.
Besimo, C. et al. (1997) ‘Clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures and extracoronal attachments for removable prostheses,’ The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 78(5), pp. 465–471.
Botelho, M.G. et al. (2014) ‘Long-term clinical evaluation of 211 two-unit cantilevered resin-bonded fixed partial dentures,’ Journal of Dentistry, 42(7), pp. 778–784.
Creugers, N.H.J. et al. (1998) ‘Risk factors and multiple failures in posterior resin-bonded bridges in a 5-year multi-practice clinical trial,’ Journal of Dentistry, 26(5-6), pp. 397–402.
Djemal, S., Setchell, D., King, P. and Wickens, J., 1999. ‘Long-term survival characteristics of 832 resin-retained bridges and splints provided in a post-graduate teaching hospital between 1978 and 1993.’ Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 26(4), pp.302-320.
Durey, K.A. et al. (2011) ‘Resin bonded bridges: Techniques for Success,’ British Dental Journal, 211(3), pp. 113–118.
Ibbetson, R. (2018) ‘A contemporary approach to the provision of tooth-supported fixed prostheses part 2: Fixed bridges where the abutment teeth require minimal or no preparation,’ Dental Update, 45(2), pp. 90–100.
Kern, M., Passia, N., Sasse, M. and Yazigi, C., 2017. ‘Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and the influence of the reasons for missing incisors.’ Journal of Dentistry, 65, pp.51-55.
Kumbuloglu, O. and Özcan, M. (2015) ‘Clinical survival of indirect, anterior 3-unit surface-retained fibre-reinforced composite fixed dental prosthesis: Up to 7.5-years follow-up,’ Journal of Dentistry, 43(6), pp. 656–663.
Leung, G.K.-H. et al. (2022) Update on Dental Luting Materials, Dentistry Journal, 10(11), p. 208.
Miettinen, M. and Millar, B.J. (2013) ‘A review of the success and failure characteristics of resin-bonded bridges,’ British Dental Journal, 215(2).
Mine, A. et al. (2021) ‘Critical review about two myths in fixed dental prostheses: Full-coverage vs. resin-bonded, non-cantilever vs. cantilever,’ Japanese Dental Science Review, 57, pp. 33–38.
Quigley, N.P. et al. (2021) ‘Clinical efficacy of methods for bonding to zirconia: A systematic review,’ The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 125(2), pp. 231–240.
Pjetursson, B., Tan, W., Tan, K., Brägger, U., Zwahlen, M. and Lang, N. (2008). ‘A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of resin-bonded bridges after an observation period of at least 5 years.’ Clinical Oral Implants Research, 19(2), pp.131-141.
Thoma, D., Sailer, I., Ioannidis, A., Zwahlen, M., Makarov, N. and Pjetursson, B., 2017. ‘A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses after a mean observation period of at least 5 years’ Clinical Oral Implants Research, 28(11), 1421-1432.
Tanoue, N. et al. (2021) ‘Longevity of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures made of Metal Alloys: A review of the literature,’ Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 65(3), pp. 267–272.
Vohra, F. and Al-Qahtani, M. (2014). ‘Attitude and awareness of dentist towards resin bonded bridges in Saudi Arabia.’ The Saudi Dental Journal, 26(3), pp.96-102.
Zhang, X. et al. (2020) ‘Glass-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures for replacing a single premolar tooth: A prospective investigation with a 4-year follow-up,’ The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 124(1), pp. 53–59.