Case Reports in Dentistry

Case Reports in Dentistry / 2021 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 5578026 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5578026

Albandari Bin-Rubayan, Abdulaziz Samran, Ali Alqerban, "Minimally Invasive Resin-Bonded Inlay-Retained Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Clinical Report", Case Reports in Dentistry, vol. 2021, Article ID 5578026, 5 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5578026

Minimally Invasive Resin-Bonded Inlay-Retained Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Clinical Report

Academic Editor: Asja Celebic
Received06 Jan 2021
Accepted11 May 2021
Published30 May 2021

Abstract

This clinical report demonstrates the treatment of a healthy adult patient referred for prosthodontic treatment after orthodontic treatment with a resin-bonded inlay-retained cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (IRCFDP). The purpose of this report was to demonstrate the esthetic, functional, and conservative properties of a resin-bonded IRCFDP fabricated from monolithic zirconia which can be placed in posterior area in certain situations. Acceptable esthetics with a conservative and functional result were achieved by using a resin-bonded inlay-retained cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (IRCFDP). All laboratory and clinical procedures of this case report are described.

1. Introduction

Replacement of missing teeth area can be accomplished with resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), conventional fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), implant-supported FDPs, or removable dentures. Conventional FDPs typically require the removal of 50% to 70% of sound dental tissue [1, 2] which has been reported to lead to damage tooth vitality in 10% of the FDPs [3, 4]. For that reason, these options are indicated when the adjacent teeth are extensively restored or damaged. Tooth structure can be preserved with adhesively placed resin-bonded FDPs.

Metal resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) have been recommended as a conservative option to conventional FDPs [58]. However, when a 2-retainer design is used, debonding of one abutment often results in caries that is not perceived by the patient. Ceramic anterior RBFDPs were first described in the 1990s and have been used to replace posterior teeth in certain situations [9]. Ceramic cantilever RBFDPs were suggested by Kern et al. [10] since their clinical study of ceramic RBFDPs with two retainers exhibited high fracture rates within the first year after insertion. The cantilever design leads to reduced shear and tensile forces compared with splinting two abutments teeth with differential movement [11]. In addition, when cantilever RBFDPs debond, the patient will immediately notice [12]. In a report of 10-year follow-up study, the survival rate of cantilever ceramic RBFDPs was 98.2% [13], which was better than that of two-retainer RBFDPs [14]. A zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis (IRFDP) design was suggested by Wolfart and Kern [15], and Bishtia et al. [16] tested a new design for inlay-retained cantilever fixed dental prostheses (IRCFDPs) in an in vitro study. This design represents a conservative solution which can be applied in some patients, such as those with existing restorations or caries and when an implant-supported prosthesis is contraindicated. The aim of this clinical report was to describe the replacement of a missing mandibular right first molar with a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) resin-bonded IRCFDP made of zirconia ceramic.

2. Case Report

A healthy 42-year-old man visited the Department of Prosthodontics of Dar Aluloom University seeking a replacement for his missing mandibular right first molar which had been extracted several years ago after unsuccessful endodontic treatment (Figure 1). His dental history also included orthodontic treatment for about two years to correct malocclusion (crowding in some areas and spacing in other areas because of his missing four first molars). The orthodontist referred him to the prosthodontic clinic to restore the narrow space in the mandibular right first molar area, which had not been closed by the orthodontic treatment. The clinical investigation revealed a narrow mandibular first molar space that contraindicated for implant placement (Figure 2). In addition, the mandibular right second molar had an occlusal amalgam restoration with occlusal recurrent caries (Figure 3). The majority of teeth were vital, and the oral hygiene was good. A periapical radiograph revealed a deep existing amalgam restoration in the mandibular right second molar, with no periapical abscesses or other significant findings. After making primary impressions for diagnostic casts and consultation with other specialists, a treatment plan was formulated to replace the missing tooth with a minimally invasive resin-bonded IRCFDP [17]. The patient was informed about the risk of the proposed treatment and its alternatives, including a conventional cantilever FDP and IRFDP. After rubber dam placement, the existing amalgam restoration on the second right molar and the caries were removed, providing a cavity for the inlay retainer, which followed the preparation principles for ceramic inlay restorations [18]. The inlay cavity was prepared without bevels with fine-grit diamond rotary instruments by removing sharp margins, smoothing the pulpal floor, and preparing two retainer-wings buccally and lingually. The enamel surface was reduced by approximately 0.5 mm to provide a  mm enamel area for bonding (Figure 4). The reduction was parallel to the path of insertion of the inlay retainer. After abutment preparation, polyvinyl siloxane impression material was used for the final impression (Take 1 Advanced; Kerr Corp) in a stock tray and poured with Type IV dental stone (Fujirock; GC Corp). The stone cast was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The resin-bonded IRCFDP was designed as an inlay retainer with buccal and lingual retainer wings and a second premolar pontic and milled from an A2 zirconia shade block (Cercon HT Full Contour Zirconia; Dentsply Sirona) (Figures 5 and 6).

After sintering, the framework was seated on the cast after minor corrections, and then, the marginal fit and internal fit were checked intraorally using an explorer and a silicone indicator paste (Fit Checker, GC Corp). The silicone indicator paste exhibited a homogeneous and thin thickness which was accepted. For the inlay retainer, the minimum thickness was 3 mm, and for the buccal and lingual retainer wings, it was 0.7 mm. The dimensions for the proximal connector were approximately 4 mm in height and 4 mm in width. After try-in stage (Figure 7) and to remove the residues of the saliva and blood, the bonding surface of resin-bonded IRCFDP was cleaned using hot water steamer. Then, the bonding surface of the inlay retainer and the buccal and lingual retainer wings were airborne-particle abraded with 50 μm Al2O3 for 10 seconds with 0.1 MPa pressure [19]. After that, the prosthesis was ultrasonically cleaned for 3 minutes in alcohol path to remove the abrasive residues. Consequently, the resin-bonded IRCFDP was stored in a special container while the preparation surfaces of the abutment tooth are cleaned and treated for the next cementation process.

A rubber dam was applied during adhesive cementation, and the abutment tooth was cleaned with pumice. Then, the preparation surfaces of the abutment tooth were etched with a 37% phosphoric acid gel (Cica; Promedica) for 15-30 sec (according to the tooth structure; dentin or enamel). Then, the acid etch gel was sprayed off with water for 15 sec, and the tooth was thoroughly dried with air stream. After that, the enamel and dentin walls were conditioned with corresponding primer (Compobond LCM Primer; Promedica) which was mixed according to manufacturer’s instructions and applied for 30 seconds before dispersing the excess using gentle oil-free air stream. Then, the adhesive material (Compobond LCM Adhesive; Promedica) was mixed according to manufacturer’s instructions and applied for 15 seconds before removing the excess using gentle oil-free air stream and light cured for 15 sec. Finally, bonding surfaces of the prosthesis were primed with a ceramic primer (Aureocem DC Ceramic Primer; Promedica) using a microbrush. The primer was left for 60 s, and the excesses were removed with an oil-free air stream. After that, the cement (Aureocem DC Automix, Promedica) was distributed over the resin-bonded IRCFDP bonding surfaces, and the prosthesis was seated in place (Figure 8). Steady finger pressure was applied during the setting time. After cementation, the function and occlusion were checked using articulator papers.

3. Discussion

This clinical report describes replacing the narrow space of a missing mandibular right molar with an esthetic and conservative resin-bonded IRCFDP fabricated from monolithic zirconia. The esthetics of this zirconia resin-bonded IRCFDP were excellent, better than the metal-ceramic FDP. Although this technique has been recommended only as an interim technique of replacing of missing teeth, however, its conservative preparation, esthetic, and reported survival rate suggest that it may be considered as a definitive treatment choice in certain situations [6, 13, 2022]. The framework of the current resin-bonded IRCFDP was made of monolithic zirconia material based on laboratory studies that reported higher fracture load for zirconia-based IRFDPs than those made from lithium disilicate ceramic [2325]. This resin-bonded IRCFDP design was developed to overcome the high failure rate of previous IRFDP designs which might not be recommended for clinical indications [2628]. The presence of wings in this design reduced stress on the inlay retainer caused by torsion forces applied nonaxially and to increase the enamel surface area for bonding. Similar retainer wings have been used in previous studies with cantilevered ceramic resin-bonded FDPs [20, 29].

Disadvantages of this design included the poor color match of the resin-bonded IRCFDP to the adjacent natural teeth because the prosthesis was made completely of monolithic zirconia (Figure 6). Additionally, the wings were somewhat bulky which added approximately 0.1 to 0.2 mm to the tooth contour. A suggested minimum thickness of 0.6 to 0.7 mm was used for the zirconia wings, and the tooth preparation was minimal in this area (approximately 0.5 mm) [17].

4. Conclusion

An esthetic and conservative approach to replacing the narrow space of a missing posterior molar with a resin-bonded IRCFDP fabricated from monolithic zirconia was described. After a conservative tooth preparation, a resin-bonded IRCFDP with buccal and lingual wings was fabricated from monolithic zirconia. The patient was so satisfied and pleased with the aesthetics and functional results. This treatment option helped maintain the abutment and the adjacent teeth. Clinical follow-up is important to determine the success rate of this type of prosthesis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Research in Dar Aluloom University for its support.

References

  1. D. Edelhoff and J. A. Sorensen, “Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth,” The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 241–249, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  2. D. Edelhoff and J. A. Sorensen, “Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 503–509, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. K. Langeland, “Dentin and pulp reactions to cavity and crown preparation. Survey of literature,” Annual Meeting - American Institute of Oral Biology, vol. 23, pp. 73–88, 1966. View at: Google Scholar
  4. K. Langeland and L. K. Langeland, “Pulp reactions to cavity and crown preparation,” Australian Dental Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 261–276, 1970. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. A. L. Rochette, “Attachment of a splint to enamel of lower anterior teeth,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 418–423, 1973. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. Wood, M. Kern, V. P. Thompson, and E. Romberg, “Ten-year clinical and microscopic evaluation of resin-bonded restorations,” Quintessence International, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 803–807, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  7. D. F. Howe and G. E. Denehy, “Anterior fixed partial dentures utilizing the acid-etch technique and a cast metal framework,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 28–31, 1977. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. G. J. Livaditis and V. P. Thompson, “Etched castings: an improved retentive mechanism for resin-bonded retainers,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 52–58, 1982. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. Kern, H. Knode, and J. R. Strubb, “The all-porcelain, resin-bonded bridge,” Quintessence International, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 257–262, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  10. M. Kern and J. R. Strub, “Bonding to alumina ceramic in restorative dentistry: clinical results over up to 5 years,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 245–249, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. B. Mourshed, A. Samran, A. Alfagih, A. Samran, S. Abdulrab, and M. Kern, “Anterior cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: a review of the literature,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 266–275, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. Kern and R. Glaser, “Cantilevered all-ceramic, resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: a new treatment modality,” Journal of Esthetic Dentistry, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 255–264, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. M. Kern, N. Passia, M. Sasse, and C. Yazigi, “Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and the influence of the reasons for missing incisors,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 65, pp. 51–55, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. A. van Dalen, A. J. Feilzer, and C. J. Kleverlaan, “A literature review of two-unit cantilevered FPDs,” The International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 281–284, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  15. S. Wolfart and M. Kern, “A new design for all-ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial dentures: a report of 2 cases,” Quintessence International, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  16. S. Bishti, C. Jakel, M. Kern, and S. Wolfart, “Influence of different preparation forms on the loading-bearing capacity of zirconia cantilever FDPs. A laboratory study,” Journal of Prosthodontic Research, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 347–353, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. Kern, Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses: Minimally Invasive–Esthetic–Reliable, Quintessence Publishing, 2019.
  18. J. B. Summitt, J. W. Robbins, T. J. Hilton, R. S. Schwartz, and J. Dos Santos Jr., “Esthetic Inlays and Onlays,” in Fundamentals of operative dentistry A contemporary approach, pp. 514–528, Quintessence Publishing Co, 3rd edition, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  19. S. M. Wegner, W. Gerdes, and M. Kern, “Effect of different artificial aging conditions on ceramic-composite bond strength,” The International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 267–272, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  20. M. Kern, “Single-retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses as an alternative to orthodontic space closure (and to single-tooth implants),” Quintessence International, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 789–798, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Kern, “Fifteen-year survival of anterior all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 56, pp. 133–135, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. Kern and M. Sasse, “Ten-year survival of anterior all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses,” The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 407–410, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. A. Kilicarslan, P. S. Kedici, H. C. Kucukesmen, and B. C. Uludag, “In vitro fracture resistance of posterior metal-ceramic and all-ceramic inlay- retained resin-bonded fixed partial dentures,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 365–370, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. C. A. Mohsen, “Fracture resistance of three ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture designs. An in vitro comparative study,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 531–535, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S. Wolfart, K. Ludwig, A. Uphaus, and M. Kern, “Fracture strength of all-ceramic posterior inlay-retained fixed partial dentures,” Dental Materials, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1513–1520, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. D. Edelhoff, H. Spiekermann, and M. Yildirim, “Metal-free inlay-retained fixed partial dentures,” Quintessence International, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 269–281, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  27. S. Harder, S. Wolfart, S. Eschbach, and M. Kern, “Eight-year outcome of posterior inlay-retained all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 875–881, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. S. Wolfart, F. Bohlsen, S. M. Wegner, and M. Kern, “A preliminary prospective evaluation of all-ceramic crown-retained and inlay-retained fixed partial dentures,” The International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 497–505, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  29. M. Kern, “Clinical long-term survival of two-retainer and single-retainer all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures,” Quintessence International, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 141–147, 2005. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Albandari Bin-Rubayan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views814
Downloads865
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.