Year : 2019 | Volume
: 6 | Issue : 1 | Page : 17--20
Different classification system for failures in tooth supported fixed partial denture: a systematic review
V Chandrakala1, S Deepmala2, G Srivatsa3,
1 Reader, Department of Prosthodontics, K.L.E Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, K.L.E Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
3 Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, K.L.E Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Dr. V Chandrakala
Department of Prosthodontics, K.L.E Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka
Fixed prosthodontic treatment can offer exceptional satisfaction for both patient and dentist but failure may occur at any time right from diagnosis to treatment phase which can be frustrating. The dental literature is lacking in classification of failures in Fixed partial dentures. The cause may be that signs and symptoms of failures are varied and often complex and there is the additional problem of reaching a common interpretation among investigators on the definition of failure. When dealing with failed or failing fixed restorations, proper knowledge of diagnosis, assessment of the clinical condition and technical skills are absolutely necessary. Hence it is important to be aware of obvious and subtle indications of prosthesis failure and have a working knowledge of the procedure that are necessary to remember the situation. This review focusses on classification systems of failures associated with tooth supported fixed partial denture proposed by different authors.
|How to cite this article:|
Chandrakala V, Deepmala S, Srivatsa G. Different classification system for failures in tooth supported fixed partial denture: a systematic review.Int J Prev Clin Dent Res 2019;6:17-20
|How to cite this URL:|
Chandrakala V, Deepmala S, Srivatsa G. Different classification system for failures in tooth supported fixed partial denture: a systematic review. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 25 ];6:17-20
Available from: https://www.ijpcdr.org/text.asp?2019/6/1/17/263455
Fixed prosthodontic treatment can offer exceptional satisfaction for both the patient and dentist. To achieve such success, however, requires meticulous attention to every detail from initial patient interview, through the active treatment phase, to a planned schedule of follow-up care. Fixed prosthodontic failures can be frustrating and complex in terms of both diagnosis and treatment and may occur at any time. Hence, it is important to be aware of obvious and subtle indications of prosthesis failure and have a working knowledge of the procedure that are necessary to remember the situation.
Before calling any fixed tooth-supported prosthesis as “Failing” or “Failed” implant, there are certain objectives which a fixed prosthesis should fulfill. Failing to fulfill these objectives leads to failures in fixed prosthodontic treatment.
Objectives of Fixed Prosthodontic Treatment
Preservation and improvement of related hard- and soft-tissue structuresPreservation or improvement of oral functionImprovement or restoration of estheticsEnsuring restoration retention, resistance and stabilityProviding restoration with mechanical or structural integrityPreserving or improving patient comfortDesigning restorations for maximum longevity.
Classification System for Failures in Tooth-Supported Fixed Partial Denture
“Tinker” was the first one to summarize the causes of FPD failures as early as in 1920. Chief among the causes for such disappointing results were:
First: Faulty or no attempt at diagnosis and prognosisSecond: Failure to remove foci of infectionThird: Disregard for tooth formFourth: Absence of proper embrasuresFifth: Interproximal spacesSixth: Faulty occlusion and articulation.
Cementation failureMechanical breakdown
Flexion, tearing, or fracture of the goldSolder joint failurePontic fractureBonded porcelain failure
Gingival irritation or recessionPeriodontal breakdownCariesNecrosis of the pulp.
Lombardi classification of esthetic errors
Inharmonious dentofacial ratio
Shade disharmonyCompositional incompatibility
Static prosthesis in dynamic mouthInharmonious strength or weakness of dental composition compared to background features
Weak mouth with strong faceStrong mouth with weak face.
Intrinsic dental disharmony
Space allocation errors
Inadequate vertical space allocationExcessive vertical space allocationExcessive horizontal space allocation
Structural line errors
Elevated occlusal planeOcclusal plane drops down posteriorlyAsymmetrical occlusal plane.
Reverse smiling lineUnnatural axial inclinationCusp less posterior teethGradation errorsAge–sex personality disharmony.
Vertical deviationHorizontal deviationLine conflict.
Midline errorImbalance of directionsArtifact errorDiastema error.
Barreto classification – 1984
Biologic – caries, fractures, and generalized periodontal disturbancesEsthetics – shapes, contours, and surface characteristicsBiophysical – physical properties and chemical composition of porcelain and metalBiomechanical – faulty designs, misplaced finish lines, rough or sharp surfaces, and undercuts on the bonding surface cause porcelain to be dislodged.
Thayer classification – 1984
CariesCement failuresPreparation fractures and acrylic veneer wear/lossPorcelain fracturesSolder joint or major connector failurePeriodontal involvement.
Selby classification – 1984
CariesPeriodontal diseaseEndodontic or periapical problems.
Loss of retentionFracture or loss of porcelainWear or loss of acrylic veneerWear or perforation of goldFracture of metal frameworkFracture of solder jointsFracture of abutment tooth or rootDefective marginsPoor contourPoor esthetics.
Wise  classification – 1999
General pathosisPeriodontal problemsCariesPulpal changesErosionCracked teethSubpontic inflammationTemporomandibular joint disordersOcclusal problems.
Smith classification – 1985
Loss of retentionMechanical failures of crown and bridge componentsChanges on abutment toothDesign failuresInadequate clinical or laboratory technique
Marginal deficienciesDefectsPoor shape and color
John. F. Johnston  classification – 1986
CariesRoot cariesPeriodontal diseaseOcclusal problemsGingival irritationGingival recessionPulp and periapical healthTooth perforation.
Loss of retentionCementation failureAcrylic veneer wear or lossPorcelain fractureMetal-ceramic porcelain failuresPorcelain jacket crown failures.
Improper shade selectionExcessive metal thickness and exposureThick opaque layer application 7 overglazingDark space in cervical thirdFailure of translucencyImproper contouringDiscoloration of facing.
Manappallil classification – 2008
Class I – Cause of failure is correctable without replacing restorationClass II – Cause of failure is correctable without replacing restoration; however, supporting tooth structure or foundation requires repair or reconstructionClass III – Failure requiring restoration replacement only. Supporting tooth structure and/or foundation acceptableClass IV – Failure requiring restoration replacement in addition to repair or reconstruction of supporting tooth structure and/or foundationClass V – Severe failure with loss of supporting tooth or inability to reconstruct using original tooth support. Fixed prosthodontic replacement remains possible through the use of other or additional support for redesigned restorationClass VI – Severe failure with loss of supporting tooth or inability to reconstruct using original tooth support. Conventional fixed prosthodontic replacement is not possible.
Fixed prosthodontic failures are varied and often complex in cause and effect. A Medline and an extensive hand search performed for the last 50 years showed that the most common complications associated with conventional fixed partial dentures were caries (18% of abutments and 8% of prostheses), need for endodontic treatment (11% of abutments and 8% of prostheses), loss of retention (7% of prostheses), esthetics (6% of prostheses), periodontal disease (4% of prostheses), tooth fracture (3% of prostheses), and prosthesis/porcelain fracture (2% of prostheses). The best way to lessen the fixed dental prosthesis failures is to have a sound knowledge of diagnosis and treatment procedures, but many times, failures too occur even after meticulous attention paid. Hence, it is important to know about various classification systems available in the literature for better management of failures wisely in tooth-supported fixed partial denture.,,,,,
The classification systems presented in this review for failures in tooth-supported fixed partial denture identify trends that can be effectively and wisely used to develop treatment plans that optimize success and to communicate appropriate expectations to patients.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
|1||Dykema RW, Goodacre CJ, Phillips RW. Johnston's Modern Practice in Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, London: W B Saunders Co.; 1986.|
|2||Simpson RL. Failures in crown and bridge prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 1953;47:154-9.|
|3||Manappallil JJ. Classification system for conventional crown and fixed partial denture failures. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:293-8.|
|4||Tinker ET. Fixed bridge-work. J Natl Dent Assoc 1920;7:579-95.|
|5||Roberts DH. The failure of retainers in bridge prostheses. An analysis of 2,000 retainers. Br Dent J 1970;128:117-24.|
|6||Lombardi RE. A method for the classification of errors in dental esthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1974;32:501-13.|
|7||Barreto MT. Failures in ceramometal fixed restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:186-9.|
|8||Thayer KE. Textbook of Fixed Prosthodontics. 2nd ed. Chicago, Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc. 1984.|
|9||Selby A. Fixed prosthodontic failure. A review and discussion of important aspects. Aust Dent J 1994;39:150-6.|
|10||Wise MD. Failure in the restored dentition; management and Treatment. Quintessence: London. 1995;397-412.|
|11||Smith B, Howe L. Planning and Making Crowns and Bridges. 4th ed.: CRC Press; 2013.|
|12||Dykema RW, Goodacre CJ, Phillips RW. Johnston's Modern Practice in Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th ed. Philadelphia, London: W B Saunders Co.; 1986.|
|13||Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:31-41.|
|14||Hursey RJ. A clinical survey of the failure of crown and bridges. S C Dent J 1958;16:4-11.|
|15||Lundqvist P, Nilson H. A clinical re-examination of patients treated with pinledge-crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9:373-87.|
|16||Cheung GS. A preliminary investigation into the longevity and causes of failure of single unit extracoronal restorations. J Dent 1991;19:160-3.|
|17||Palmqvist S, Swartz B. Artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures 18 to 23 years after placement. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:279-85.|
|18||Milleding P, Haag P, Neroth B, Renz I. Two years of clinical experience with procera titanium crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:224-32.|