{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021505376344086023, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005376344086021506, 'mean_word_length': 5.206666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Resin-retained Bridges Re-visited Part 2. Clinical Considerations

Resin-retained bridges have been used clinically since the 1970s, and offer a more conservative approach to the restoration of edentulous spaces than conventional bridgework. They are easy to place, cheap to fabricate and have been shown to be cost-effective. Despite this, they are not frequently used in general dental practice and they have an undeserved reputation for failure. Since their initial introduction, they have undergone a number of changes to their method of retention, and the materials used in their construction. This has resulted in a predictable, aesthetic restoration which, barring the use of implants, is often the treatment of choice where teeth adjacent to an edentulous space are minimally or not restored. This article hopes to show the clinical techniques required to produce predictable resin-retained bridgework in general practice.