RETENTIVE FACTORS

OF CROWN
DR. MD. ASHFAKUL ISLAM
INTERN DOCTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHODONTICS
UPDATE DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR
RETENTION OF A CROWN

1. Magnitude of the dislodging forces

2. Geometry of the tooth preparation
3. Roughness of the fitting surface of the restoration
4. Film thickness of the luting agent

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 1.MAGNITUDE OF THE DISLODGING
FORCES

• Forces that tend to remove a cemented restoration

along its path of placement are small in comparison
with those that tend to seat or tilt it.
• The greatest removal forces generally arise when
exceptionally sticky food (e.g., caramel) is eaten.

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR
RETENTION OF A CROWN

1. Magnitude of the dislodging forces

2. Geometry of the tooth preparation
3. Roughness of the fitting surface of the restoration
4. Film thickness of the luting agent

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 2. GEOMETRY OF THE TOOTH
PREPARATION

Retention of the prostheses depends on the ideal preparation

of the tooth. Tooth preparation is done either by the Tapering
technique or by the Parallel technique.
Taper
 It’s defined as a convergence between two opposing axial walls, in
occluso-axial junction.
 Two opposing surfaces , each with a 3 degree of inclination would give
the preparation a total of 6 degree taper.

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 Why tapered ?
1. To visualize preparation
walls.

2. To prevent the undercuts.

3. To permit complete
seating of the restoration
during cementation.

•Fauchard P 2nd ed. The surgeon dentist. Vol. II. : Classics of Dentistry

Library, Birmingham, AL1980
•Fauchard P 2nd ed. The surgeon dentist. Vol. II. : Classics of Dentistry
Library, Birmingham, AL1980
 More tilting toward the tooth create Ideal tapering is 0 degree. But as it is
excessive convergence(Taper) . not possible so acceptable is 6-10
 Weak retention. degree.
Redrawn from Jørgensen KD: The relationship between retention and convergence angle in cemented veneer
crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 13:35, 1955
 PARALLEL PREPARATION

• A. Cross sections 1 and 2 do not

coincide, and the preparation thus
has little retention.
• B. Under these circumstances, very
little friction develops between the
cement and the axial walls, and the
cement is subjected to tensile stress.
• C. A retentive near-parallel
preparation with frictional
resistance. The cement is placed
under shear stress.

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 Parallel technique
of tooth
preparation

Clinical Steps to Predictable Color Management in Aesthetic Restorative Dentistry - Scientific Figure on
ResearchGate. fig1_6302843 [accessed 7 Aug, 2022]
 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR
RETENTION OF A CROWN

1. Magnitude of the dislodging forces

2. Geometry of the tooth preparation
3. Roughness of the fitting surface of the restoration
4. Film thickness of the luting agent

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 3. ROUGHNESS OF THE FITTING SURFACE OF
THE RESTORATION

• When the internal surface of a restoration is very

smooth, retentive failure occurs not through the cement
but at the interface between the luting agent and the
restoration.
• In addition, we can use retentive groove in the prepared
tooth surface to facilitate proper seating of the crown.
Clarke et al. (2015) The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry 35(2):211-8
Why Luting Agent
Is Needed?
 History of Dental Cements
2050

2004
2000 1992
1968 1972 1975

1950 1940

1900
1880
1850
1850

1800

1750
t e t t t t t t
en hat en en en en en en
em p em m em m em m
C hos C Ce C Ce C Ce
nol c P at
e
at
e er sin er sin
ge c l m e m Re
Eu Zin Sil
i
oxy
ono R
ono e
e a rb ss
i
ss
I siv
x id lyc a a he
O o Gl Gl Ad
Zin
c cP fie
d
f–
iZ n i
Se
l
od
M
sin
Re

Hill definitive luting: a review and practical Dental Clinics of North America. 2007; 51:
643-658.
 Why Dental Cements Are Changing Day By
Day?
 ZOE Cement  Zinc Phosphate  Silicate Cement
 Pulpal irritation due to  Pulpal irritation due to
 Solubility. low pH that is acidic. low pH that is acidic.
 Tissue irritation.  Slow setting time.

 Zinc Polycarboxylate Cement  Glass ionomer Cement

 It is thixotropic in nature.  Water sensitivity which
Hence, it may be too thick can alter its physical
and will not flow adequately. properties.
 Short setting time.
 CONT….
 Resin Cement
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer
 Not cariostatic. Cement
 Film thickness is Moister sensitive.

greater than other Highest chance of post

operative sensitivity.
cements.
 Resin in sulcus can
cause serious Self – Adhesive Resin Cement
periodontal problems. Shade shifting over time.
 Marginal leakage due to
polymerizing shrinkage.
 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR
RETENTION OF A CROWN

1. Magnitude of the dislodging forces

2. Geometry of the tooth preparation
3. Roughness of the fitting surface of the restoration
4. Film thickness of the luting agent

[Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics- 5th edition]

 4.FILM THICKNESS OF THE LUTING
AGENT
• Ideal thickness of the luting cement is 25μ.
• Previously it was thought that luting agents are
responsible for giving retention to the prostheses.
• But recently some exception has been seen.
• Dental cements do not provide retention to prostheses
but aids in the marginal sealing of the crown border.
• The thickness ideal for a luting agent is so thin that it
can not withstand the load/force alone.
 Is retention of crown
achieved only by Dental
Cements or not?
“For a restoration to accomplish its purpose, it must stay in
place on the tooth. No cements that are compatible with
living tooth structure and the biologic environment of
the oral cavity possess adequate adhesive properties to
hold a restoration in place solely through adhesion. The
geometric configuration of the tooth preparation must
place the cement in compression to provide the necessary
retention.”

Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics (4th Edition)

 25μ

Effect of cements on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-representation-of-measuring-points-in-micro-CT-analysis-Crown-thickness-
and_fig2_292344515 [accessed 7 Aug, 2022]
 Voids within the
cement

Marginal Seal

Zinc phosphate as a definitive cement for implant-supported crowns and fixed dentures - Scientific
Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/mplant-supported-
fixed-restorations-are-fabricated-for-a-passive-fit-Notes-This-means_fig4_320873323 [accessed 7
Aug, 2022]
 ROLE OF CEMENT
• Its main function is to provide marginal seal
between the prepared tooth surface and the crown.
• It is the most important thing because if marginal
leakage occurs it can cause secondary caries and
thus can cause failure of the prosthesis.
• But its ideal thickness is not enough to provide
retention of the crown. Rather it can act as a
secondary factor for slight retention of the crown.
 SUMMARY
• Dental cements possesses a major space within the dental arena.
• It exerts many functions like luting, lining, restoration, build-up, sealant
etc.
• There is no discipline in dentistry that does not require any effect of
dental cement.
• Though in previous times it was thought that dental cements were used
for retention of crown & bridge in prosthodontics, but recent study and
preparation modifications shows that cements does not aid in retention
of the crown but aids in the marginal seal of the crown border.
 Cont.

• On basis of previous discussion we can see

that upon many of retentive factor the
main retentive factor is the preparation of
the tooth surface is the issue.
• Dental cements only provides marginal
seal and prevents prosthesis failure.
 REFERENCE
1. Conzett JV. The gold inlay. Dent Cosmos 1910;52:1339–1346.
2. Ferrier WI. Cavity preparation for gold foil, gold inlay, and amalgam
operations. J Natl Dent Assoc 1917;4:441–447.
3. Ward ML. The American Textbook of Operative Dentistry, ed 6. Philadelphia:
Lea & Febiger, 1926:381–395.
4. Jorgensen KD. The relationship between retention and convergence angle in
cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;13:35–40.
5. Kaufman EG, Coelho DH, Colin L. Factors influencing the retention of
cemented gold castings. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:487502.
6. Dykema RW, Goodacre CJ, Phillips RW. Johnston’s Modern Practice in
Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics, ed 4. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1986:24.
7. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Fisher DW. Preparations for Cast Gold Restorations. Chicago:
Quintessence, 1974:16.
8. Tylman SD, Malone WFP. Tylman’s Theory and Practice of Fixed Prosthodontics, ed 7. St Louis:
Mosby, 1978:103.
9. El-Ebrashi MK, Craig RG, Peyton FA. Experimental stress analysis of dental restorations. IV. The
concept of parallelism of axial walls. J Prosthet Dent 1969;22:346–353.
10. Ohm E, Silness J. The convergence angle in teeth prepared for artificial crowns. J Oral Rehabil
1978;5:371–375.
11. Mack PJ. A theoretical and clinical investigation into the taper achieved on crown and inlay
preparations. J Oral Rehabil 1980;7:255–265.
12. Weed RM, Suddick RP, Kleffner JH. Taper of clinical and typodont crowns prepared by dental
students. J Dent Res 1984;63:286.
13. Noonan JE Jr, Goldfogel MH. Convergence of the axial walls of full veneer crown preparations
in a dental school environment. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:706–708.
14. Eames WB, O’Neal SJ, Monteiro J, Miller C, Roan JD Jr, Cohen KS. Techniques to improve
the seating of castings. J Am Dent Assoc 1978;96:432–437.
15. Kent WA, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr. Taper of clinical preparations for cast
restorations. Quintessence Int 1988;19: 339–345.
16. Nordlander J, Weir D, Stoffer W, Ochi S. The taper of clinical preparations for fixed
prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60: 148–151.
17. Weed RM. Determining adequate crown convergence. Tex Dent J 1980;98(5):14–16.
18. Dodge WW, Weed RM, Baez RJ, Buchanan RN. The effect of convergence angle on retention
and resistance form. Quintessence Int 1985;16:191–194.
19. Lorey RE, Myers GE. The retentive qualities of bridge retainers. J Am Dent Assoc
1968;76:568–572.
20. Rosenstiel E. The retention of inlays and crowns as a function of geometrical form. Br Dent J
1957;103:388–394.
21. Redrawn from Jørgensen KD: The relationship between retention and convergence angle in
cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 13:35, 1955.
22. Redrawn from Rosenstiel E: The retention of inlays and crowns as a function of geometrical
form. Br Dent J 103:388, 1957