Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1641–1649 | Cite as

Retention force of removable partial dentures with different double crowns

  • Christin ArnoldEmail author
  • Jeremias Hey
  • Jürgen M. Setz
  • Arne F. Boeckler
  • Ramona Schweyen
Original Article



The aim of the study was to compare the retentive behaviors of double crowns with different designs and material compositions before and after artificial aging.

Materials and methods

Six pairs of double crowns were fabricated: telescopic crowns 0° made of high-noble metal (group A) or non-precious metal (group B), telescopic zirconia copings with secondary crowns made of electroplated gold 2° (group C), crowns with friction pins 2° made of non-precious metal (group D) or zirconia (group E), and conical crowns 6° made of high-noble metal (group F). Retention forces were assessed before and after artificial aging, and after axial and non-axial loading.


Initially, specimens in group D (13.9 N), B (12.5 N), and E (12.2 N) exhibited the highest retention forces. Retention forces in groups A (9.6 N), C (7.4 N), and F (6.0 N) were statistically significantly lower than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). After artificial aging, double crowns with additional retention elements exhibited the highest retention forces. The largest retention force losses were evident in groups A (70%), B (64%), C (39%), and F (47%).


Double crowns with different designs and made of different materials exhibited different retention forces and different long-term retentive behavior. The highest retention force losses were evident in double crowns with more extended surface contact, such as telescopic crowns.

Clinical significance

Telescopic crowns with additional retention elements were more resistant to wearing than double crowns without additional retention elements. An additional clinical benefit might be the quick and easy possibility of enhancing retention.


Partial denture Double crowns Telescopic Friction Retention force Friction pins 



The work was supported by the Department of Prosthodontics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Dexter JE (1883) The cap plate: a new appliance in mechanical dentistry. Dent Cosmos 25(7):344–350Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wenz H-J, Kern M (2007) Long-term behavior of double crowns. Quintessenz Zahntech 33(12):1482–1494Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verma R, Joda T, Brägger U, Wittneben J-G (2013) A systematic review of the clinical performance of tooth-retained and implant-retained double crown prostheses with a follow-up of ≥ 3 years. J Prosthodont 22:2–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ELsyad MA, Elsaadawy MG, Abdoou AM, Habib AA (2013) Effect of different implant positions on strain developed around four implants supporting a mandibular overdenture with rigid telescopic copings. Quintessence Int 44(9):679–686PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rammelsberg P, Bernhart G, Bermejo JL, Schmitter M, Schwarz S (2014) Prognosis of implants and abutment teeth under combined tooth-implant-supported and solely implant-supported double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:813–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rinke S, Ziebolz D, Ratka-Krüger P, Frisch E (2014) Clinical outcome of double crown-retained mandibular removable dentures supported by a combination of residual teeth and strategic implants. J Prosthodont.
  7. 7.
    Schwindling FS, Dittmann B, Rammelsberg P (2014) Double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses: a retrospective study of survival and complications. J Prosthet Dent 112(3):488–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szentpetery V, Lautenschläger C, Setz JM (2012) Frictional telescopic crowns in severely reduced dentitions: a 5-year clinical outcome study. Int J Prosthodont 25:217–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wenz HJ, Hertrampf K, Lehmann KM (2001) Clinical longevity of removable partial dentures retained by telescopic crowns: outcome of the double crown with clearance fit. Int J Prosthodont 14(3):207–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wagner B, Kern M (2000) Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems and technical failures. Clin Oral Investig 4:74–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Behr M, Hofmann E, Rosentritt M, Lang R, Handel G (2000) Technical failure rates of double crown-retained removable partial dentures. Clin Oral Investig 4:87–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Igarashi Y, Goto T (1997) Ten-year follow-up study for conical crown retained dentures. Int J Prosthodont 10:149–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bergman B, Ericson A, Molin M (1996) Long-term clinical results after treatment with conical crown-retained dentures. Int J Prosthodont 9:533–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stober T, Danner D, Bömicke W, Hassel AJ (2015) Improvement of oral health-related quality-of-life by use of different kinds of double-crown-retained removable partial dentures. Acta Odontol Scand 20:1–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenmann E, Mokabberi A, Walter MH, Freesmeyer WB (2004) Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(6):810–818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rübeling G (1999) New techniques in spark erosion: the solution to an accurately fitting screw-retained implant restoration. Quintessence Int 30(1):37–48Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber H, Frank G (1993) Spark erosion procedure: a method for extensive combined fixed and removable prosthodontic care. J Prosthet Dent 69(2):222–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bayer S, Zuziak W, Kraus D, Keilig L, Stark H, Enkling N (2011) Conical crowns with electroplated gold copings: retention force changes caused by wear and combined off-axial load. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:323–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ohkawa S, Okane H, Nagasawa T, Tsuru H (1990) Changes in retention of various telescope crown assemblies over long term use. J Prosthet Dent 64:153–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alsabeeha NHM, Payne AGT, Swain MV (2009) Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 22(5):429–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ (2004) Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 13(4):221–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarnat AE (1983) The efficiency of cobalt samarium (Co5Sm) magnets as retention units for overdentures. J Dent 11(4):324–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Besimo CH, Graber G, Flühler M (1996) Retention force changes in implant-supported titanium telescope crowns over long-term use in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 23:372–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, Naumann M (2010) Parameters affecting retentive force of electroformed double-crown systems. Clin Oral Investig 14:129–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gurbulak AG, Kilic K, Eroglu Z, Gercekcioglu E, Kesim B (2013) Evaluation of the retention force of double crowns used in combination with a galvanoforming and casting fabrication technique. J Prosthodont 22:63–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Engels J, Schubert O, Güth JF, Hoffmann M, Jauernig CH, Erdelt K, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F (2013) Wear behavior of different double-crown system. Clin Oral Investig 17:503–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sakai Y, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N, Igarashi Y (2011) Effects of surface roughness and tapered angle of cone crown telescopic system on retentive force. Dent Mater J 30(5):635–641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Güngör MA, Artunc C, Sonugelen M (2004) Parameters affecting retentive force of conus crowns. J Oral Rehabil 31:271–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minagi S, Natsuaki N, Nishigawa G, Sato T (1999) New telescopic crown design for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 8:684–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weigl P, Hahn L, Lauer HC (2000) Advanced biomaterials used for a new telescopic retainer for removable dentures: Ceramics vs. electroplated gold copings: Part I. In vitro tribology effects. J Biomed Mater Res 53:320–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dillschneider T, Nothdurft FP, Abed-Rabbo M, Mitov G, Pospiech PR (2009) In vitro-investigations on the wear behavior of different double crown systems. Dent Mater 25:e20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turp I, Bozdağ E, Sünbüloğlu E, Kahruman C, Yusufoğlu I, Bayraktar G (2014) Retention and surface changes of zirconia primary crowns with secondary crowns different materials. Clin Oral Investig 18:2023–2035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dabrowa T, Dobrowolska A, Wieleba W (2013) The role of friction in the mechanism of retaining the partial removable dentures with double crown systems. Acta of Bioeng Biomech 15(4):43–48Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Picton DCA (1990) Tooth mobility – an update. Eur J Orthod 12:109–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Körber KH (1983) Dynamischer Mechanismus von Parodontium und Gewebestrukturen unter herausnehmbarem Zahnersatz. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 38:975–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Behr M, Rosentritt M, Taubenhansl P, Kolbeck C, Handel G (2005) Fracture resistance of fiber-reinforced composite restorations with different framework design. Acta Odontol Scand 63:153–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Zellweger G, Büchler A, Zappini G (2008) Fracture frequency of all-ceramic crowns during dynamic loading in a chewing simulator using different loading and luting protocols. Dent Mater 24:1352–1361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O (2009) Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 18:507–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stappert CF, Chitmongkolsuk S, Silva NR, Att W, Strub JR (2008) Effect of mouth-motion fatigue and thermal cycling on the marginal accuracy of partial coverage restorations made of various dental materials. Dent Mater 24:1248–1257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bayer S, Stark H, Gölz L, Keilig L, Kraus D, Hansen A, Enkling N (2012) Telescopic crowns: extra-oral and intra-oral retention force measurement—in vitro/in vivo correlation. Gerodontology 29:e340–e347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schalk S (2011) Eine objektive und subjektive Beurteilung der Retentionskräfte verschiedener Verbindungselemente an herausnehmbaren Teilprothesen. Dissertation, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. Accessed 02 June 2016
  42. 42.
    Bayer S, Stark H, Gölz L, Keilig L, Kraus D, Hansen A, Enkling N (2012) Clinical retention force development of double crowns. Clin Oral Investig 16:407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christin Arnold
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeremias Hey
    • 1
  • Jürgen M. Setz
    • 1
  • Arne F. Boeckler
    • 1
  • Ramona Schweyen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental MedicineMartin-Luther-UniversityHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations