RBBs are resin-bonded bridges that are a minimally invasive option for replacing missing teeth. They are suitable for short spans of missing teeth when the patient is unwilling or unsuitable for surgery. Key factors in determining if a tooth can support an RBB include adequate size, minimal restoration, healthy periodontium, and proper angulation. The bridge design depends on factors like coverage, number of abutments, and framework rigidity. With careful case selection and attention to detail, RBBs can successfully replace missing teeth for select patients.

3. What are RBB’s?
0 Minimally invasive prosthodontic replacement of
missing teeth.

4. INDICATIONS
0 Short span edentulous areas
0 Pt unwilling or unsuitable for surgical treatment.
0 Needle phobic pts.
0 Post orthodontic fixed retention
0 In periodontally compromised - Splinting

6. CONTRA INDICATIONS
0 Heavily restored abutments
0 Small sized abutments – Peg Laterals
0 Mal-alligned abutments
0 Mobile abutments
0 Long span edentulous area
0 Allergy to base metal alloys

7. SUITABLE
ABUTMENT?

8. Assess the:

9. SIZE: Larger enamel surface – better
bond.
Small sized abutments (Peg laterals)

10. RESTORATIVE STATUS:
Minimally restored with good quality
enamel
Resurfacing old restorations
GIC/Amalgam = ?
Composite = ?
0ENDODONTIC STATUS: Vital
teeth, without any pulpal pathosis

11. 0 PERIODONTAL STATUS:
• No active periodontal disease .
• Less than 50% bone loss, a fixed-fixed type of RBB will
act as a splint – is acceptable
• More than 50% bone loss, RBB should be
reconsidered.

12. 0ANGULATION:
0 Assessing the angulation – should be suitable
0 Reducing bulbosity to increase the connector height
0 POSITION:
0 Distal abutment with mesial cantilever is most suitable

16. DESIGNING THE RBB
Depends upon:
1. Degree of coverage
2. Number of abutments
3. Framework Rigidity

17. Degree of Coverage:
0The literature suggests that
the
best outcome for adhesive
bridges can be
achieved where maximum
enamel coverage

18. Anterior teeth:
0 Should include the entire palatal/lingual surface, as
well as extending on to the incisal edge.
0 Endodontically Restored teeth- retention from the
access cavity

19. Posterior Teeth:
0 Palatal/ lingual cusps
0 Occlusal surface

20. NO. OF ABUTMENTS
0 Less no of abutments,
low rate of failure.
0 Evidence shows that
fixed-fixed type RBB has
twice the rate of failure
compared to Cantilever
type
0 Partial Debonding.

21. FRAMEWORK RIGIDITY
0 Regidity depends on the
thickness of the
framework.
0 Thickness should be at
least 0.7mm for
anteriors.
0 Thickness should be
increased as the span of
bridge increases

22. Bridge Designs
0Maryland Bridge

23. 0Rochette Bridge

24. 0Virginia Bridge

25. CONCLUSION
Like in all restorative cases, Careful case
selection and attention to detail are critical for
the successful provision of RBBs.