International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of Indirect Fiber-reinforced Composite Resin-bonded Bridges with New Clinical Techniques

Wajeeh Hmeadi, Mohammad Sultan

Keywords : Adhesive bridges, Fiber-reinforced composite, Intraoral scan, Minimal preparation, Resin-bonded-bridges

Citation Information : Hmeadi W, Sultan M. A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of Indirect Fiber-reinforced Composite Resin-bonded Bridges with New Clinical Techniques. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (2):54-58.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1365

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-01-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the longevity of the indirect fiber-reinforced composite resin-bonded-bridges (FRC RBBs) by new preparation design and digital impression, and compare it to the traditional preparation and impression. Materials and methods: The present study was a randomized controlled trial. Thirty patients were included in this study and were divided into two main groups (15 patients in each group, 1:1 allocation ratio). Group I received FRC RBBs with traditional minimal preparation and making impressions with additional silicone. While in group II FRC RBBs with a new preparation design were employed and intraoral scan impression was done for the patients. Both groups were designed and manufactured by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Success and survival rates were evaluated for up to 2 years of the follow-up period. Kaplan–Meier survival curves and a logrank test were employed to analyze the data, with a 95% confidence interval. Results: Both groups were accompanied by a 100% survival rate after 2 years of follow-up. Nevertheless, the FRC RBBs (with traditional preparation) tended to show a better success rate of about 93.3% compared to 80% for the FRC RBBs (with new preparation technique), for 24 months. However, groups lacked statistical significance differences (p = 0.267). Conclusions: The study showed that indirect FRC RBBs in both groups performed well, with high success and survival rates for 2 years. Thus, it could offer a longer-term treatment solution taking into consideration the limitation of a short follow-up time and a small sample size.

PDF Share
  1. Rochette AL. Attachment of a splint to enamel of lower anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30(4 Pt 1):418–423. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(73)90163-7
  2. Kern M. RBFDPs Resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses. Minimally invasive-esthetic-reliable. Avril du Plessis, Natalie Ward (ed): Quintessenz Verlag; 2019.
  3. Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Resin-bonded bridges: survival and recent concept. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020;10(3):93. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1282
  4. Scribante A, Vallittu PK, Özcan M, et al. Travel beyond clinical uses of fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) in dentistry: a review of past employments, present applications, and future perspectives. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:1498901. DOI: 10.1155/2018/1498901
  5. Perea L, Matinlinna JP, Tolvanen M, et al. Fiber-reinforced composite fixed dental prostheses with various pontics. J Adhes Dent 2014;16(2):161–168. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a30755
  6. Perea L, Matinlinna JP, Tolvanen M, et al. Penetration depth of monomer systems into acrylic resin denture teeth used as pontics. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113(5):480–487. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.10.005
  7. Petersen R, Liu PR. 3D-woven fiber-reinforced composite for CAD/CAM dental application. Sampe J 2016;2016:LB15–LB0138.
  8. Johari Y, Ariffin Z, Taib H, et al. Minimum intervention dentistry with indirect fibre-reinforced composite bridge: a case report. Arch Orofac Sci 2016;11(2):49–53.
  9. Bechir F, Bataga SM, Tohati A, et al. Evaluation of the behavior of two CAD/CAM fiber-reinforced composite dental materials by immersion tests. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(23):7185. DOI: 10.3390/ma14237185
  10. Vallittu PK. An overview of development and status of fiber-reinforced composites as dental and medical biomaterials. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2018;4(1):44–55. DOI: 10.1080/23337931.2018
  11. Scribante A, Vallittu PK, Özcan M. Fiber-reinforced composites for dental applications. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:4734986. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4734986
  12. Park JM, Shim JS. Optical impression in restorative dentistry. Computer Vision in Dentistry. Monika Elzbieta Machoy (ed): IntechOpen, 2019.
  13. Yazigi C, Kern M. Clinical evaluation of zirconia cantilevered single-retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses replacing missing canines and posterior teeth. J Dent 2022;116:103907. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103907
  14. Zalkind M, Ever-Hadani P, Hochman N. Resin-bonded fixed partial denture retention: a retrospective 13-year follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(10):971–977. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01165.x
  15. Seong LG, May LW. Key indicators of success or survival for clinical performance of fixed partial denture. Ann Dent UM 2019;26:53–58. DOI: 10.22452/adum.vol26no8
  16. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(3):313–320. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  17. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46(1):9–17. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a32244
  18. Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, et al. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31(2):107–113. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5643
  19. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(1):111–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
  20. Rajak DK, Pagar DD, Menezes PL, et al. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites: manufacturing, properties, and applications. Polymers (Basel) 2019;11(10):1667. DOI: 10.3390/polym11101667
  21. Ibrahim AA, Byrne D, Hussey DL, et al. Bond strengths of maxillary anterior base metal resin-bonded retainers with different thicknesses. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78(3):281–285. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70027-1
  22. Garoushi S, Vallittu P. Fiber-reinforced composites in fixed partial dentures. Libyan J Med 2006;1(1):73–82. DOI: 10.4176/060802
  23. Ballo A, Vallittu P. Alternative fabrication method for chairside fiber-reinforced composite resin provisional fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24(5):453–456.
  24. Porto TS, Roperto RC, Akkus A, et al. Effect of storage and aging conditions on the flexural strength and flexural modulus of CAD/CAM materials. Dent Mater J 2019;38(2):264–270. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-111
  25. Vallittu PK, Sevelius C. Resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84(4):413–418. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.109782
  26. Spinas E, Aresu M, Canargiu F. Prosthetic rehabilitation interventions in adolescents with fixed bridges: a 5-year observational study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14(1):59–62.
  27. van Heumen CC, Kreulen CM, Creugers NH. Clinical studies of fiber-reinforced resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00595.x
  28. Vallittu PK, Shinya A, Baraba A, et al. Fiber-reinforced composites in fixed prosthodontics-quo vadis? Dent Mater 2017;33(8):877–879. DOI: 10.1016/
  29. Göhring TN, Roos M. Inlay-fixed partial dentures adhesively retained and reinforced by glass fibers: clinical and scanning electron microscopy analysis after five years. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113(1):60–69. DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0722.2005.00182.x
  30. Ahmed KE, Li KY, Murray CA. Longevity of fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures (FRC FPD)—systematic review. J Dent 2017;61:1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.007
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.