39
HERRERA ET AL .
Available evidence
Feasibility iFDPs are demanding in terms of professional competency and resources. tFDPs are demanding in terms of professional competency and resources. RDPs are often less demanded compared with tFDPs or iFDPs.
Number and design of included studies Two case series (one prospective and one retrospective) evaluating 80 patients and 99 resin-bonded FDPs in mandibular anterior teeth. Risk of bias Both studies presented a high risk of bias according to the Newcastle – Ottawa scale. Effect sizes and their clinical relevance No tooth loss was reported, but a high incidence of prostheses failure (WMI = 27.4%, 95% CI [ 6.7; 61.4]) was observed. Therefore, this treatment option may be considered only in specific clinical scenarios (e.g., missing single anterior teeth). Consistency No analysis of the consistency was possible based on the available evidence. Balance of benefit and harm Even if prosthetic complications may be expected in resin-bonded FDPs, most of the cases were solved with minor reparations. More- over, it must be highlighted that teeth used as abutment were mini- mally prepared.
Ethical considerations Not applicable.
Economic considerations iFDPs come with additional costs that are not covered by healthcare systems in most countries and may be a source of inequality. The economic considerations related to tFDPs have not been properly evaluated. In any case, they may imply additional costs that are not covered by healthcare systems in most countries and may be a source of inequality. RDPs are more economical compared with tFDPs or iFDPs and often covered (at least partially) by most healthcare systems.
Legal considerations Not applicable.
R9.2. For question, see R9.1
Overall certainty of the evidence Low.
PICOS question addressed by a SR
R9.2: Evidence-based recommendation We suggest using tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses in patients with stage IV periodontitis when abutment teeth are periodontally maintainable and restorable . Resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses may be considered in certain circumstances (e.g., small tooth-delimited edentulous spaces) . We suggest not to use resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses for large tooth-delimited edentulous spaces . Supporting literature (Montero et al., 2021) Quality of evidence Low Grade of recommendation GradeB — " /GradeO — $ /GradeB — " Strength of consensus Consensus (4.9% of the group abstained due to potential CoI)
From evidence to recommendation — additional considerations
Acceptability General satisfaction and aesthetics were evaluated in both studies with high rates for both outcomes (over 8.5 of 10 in visual analogue scales). Feasibility Resin-bonded FDPs are demanding in terms of professional compe- tency and resources.
Background
Ethical considerations Not applicable.
Intervention
Economic considerations Resin-bonded FDPs may be a more affordable alternative to other tooth-supported FDPs.
For tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (tFDPs), see the back- ground text of Recommendation R9.1. In certain cases, for example, in small, tooth-delimited edentulous spaces, minimally- or non-invasive resin-bonded fixed dental prosthe- ses (FDPs) can be considered.
Legal considerations Not applicable.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report