Retention force of removable partial dentures with different double crowns
- 381 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsPartial 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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 1.Dexter JE (1883) The cap plate: a new appliance in mechanical dentistry. Dent Cosmos 25(7):344–350Google Scholar
- 2.Wenz H-J, Kern M (2007) Long-term behavior of double crowns. Quintessenz Zahntech 33(12):1482–1494Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12214
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 41.Schalk S (2011) Eine objektive und subjektive Beurteilung der Retentionskräfte verschiedener Verbindungselemente an herausnehmbaren Teilprothesen. Dissertation, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. http://digital.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/hs/urn/urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:4-6216. Accessed 02 June 2016