e167

J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. Crown and bridge removal.

Journal section: Clinical and Experimental Dentistry
Publication Types: Review
Removal of failed crown and bridge
Ashu Sharma
1
, G.R. Rahul
2
, Soorya T. Poduval
3
, Karunakar Shetty
3
1
BDS, MDS. Dept. of Prosthodontics. Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Center. Bangalore, India.
2
BDS, MDS. Professor and Head of Department of Prosthodontics. Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Center.
Bangalore, India.
3
BDS, MDS. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics. Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Center. Bangalore,
India.
Correspondence:
Dept. of Prosthodontics,
Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Center,
5/3 Hosur Main Road, Opposite Lakkasandra Bus Stop.
Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560027. India.
Email: [email protected]
Received: 03/09/2011
Accepted: 19/04/2012
Abstract
Crown and bridge have life span of many years but they fail for a number of reasons. Over the years, many devices
have been designed to remove crowns and bridges from abutment teeth. While the removal of temporary crowns
and bridges is usually very straightforward, the removal of a defnitive cast crown with unknown cement is more
challenging. Removal is often by destructive means. There are a number of circumstances, however, in which
conservative disassembly would aid the practitioner in completing restorative/endodontic procedures. There are
different mechanisms available to remove a failed crown or bridge. But there is no information published about the
classifcation of available systems for crown and bridge removal. So it is logical to classify these systems into diffe-
rent groups which can help a clinician in choosing a particular type of system depending upon the clinical situation.
The aim of this article is to provide a classifcation for various crown and bridge removal systems; describe how a
number of systems work; and when and why they might be used.
A PubMed search of English literature was conducted up to January 2010 using the terms: Crown and bridge re-
moval, Crown and bridge disassembly, Crown and bridge failure. Additionally, the bibliographies of 3 previous re-
views, their cross references as well as articles published in various journals like International Endodontic Journal,
Journal of Endodontics and were manually searched.
Key words: Crown and bridge removal, Crown and bridge disassembly, Crown and bridge failure.
Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K. Removal of failed crown and
bridge. J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72.
http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/volumenes/v4i3/jcedv4i3p167.pdf
Article Number: 50690 http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/indice.htm
Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F. B 96689336 - eISSN: 1989-5488
eMail: [email protected]
Indexed in:
Scopus
DOI System
doi:10.4317/jced.50690
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.50690
e168
J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. Crown and bridge removal.
Introduction
The use of crown and bridgework to restore a patients
dentition is a treatment carried out by practitioners on
a regular basis. Despite advances in the materials and
technologies used to construct such restorations, and
with the cements used to retain them, failure and the
need to replace crowns and bridges occurs. The reasons
for failure are multiple and caries are found to be most
common cause. The longevity of prosthesis varies with
type of prosthesis (1-6). Even the rough, over contoured
crowns can lead to restoration failures (7). At times as
the restoration gets damaged and attempts to repair them
with different materials (8-10) and methods might fail.
Such restorations needs to be removed.
In recent systematic review of the survival and compli-
cation rates of fxed partial dentures , the 10 year proba-
bility of survival was 89.1% (11).This fnding was simi-
lar to two meta-analyses reported on in 1994 and 1998
(90% and 92%) (12-13).
Over the years, many devices have been designed to
remove crowns and bridges from abutment teeth (14-
19). These crowns and bridges may be fabricated from
dental acrylics cemented to the abutment teeth with
non-rigid temporary cements, or they may be defnitive
restorations fabricated from cast metal, porcelain-metal,
ceramic, or composite resin cemented with more rigid
cements. While the removal of temporary crowns and
bridges is usually very straightforward, the removal of
a defnitive cast crown with unknown cement is more
challenging. For a temporary crown or bridge, the res-
toration can be removed using a hand instrument, usua-
lly a scaler or large spoon excavator, or crown-removing
pliers or a hemostat exerting force parallel to the long
axis of the tooth. The crown or bridge is gently moved
until the cement seal is broken. The restoration is then
easily and atraumatically removed by breaking the weak
cement seal between tooth and restoration.
Search Strategy
A PubMed search of English literature was conducted
up to January 2010 using the terms: Crown and brid-
ge removal, Crown and bridge disassembly, Crown and
bridge failure. Additionally, the bibliographies of 3 pre-
vious reviews, their cross references as well as articles
published in International Endodontic Journal, General
dentistry journal, Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of
Clinical Periodontology, British Dental Journal, Journal
of Endodontics, Journal of prosthetic dentistry and Den-
tal Update were manually searched.
Crown and Bridge Failure
There are multiple causes for crown and bridge failure
(20-21). These causes of crown and bridge failures can
be classifed into three main groups:
1.Biological. 2. Mechanical. 3. Aesthetical.
(Table 1).
Clinical Considerations for Conservative
Approach to Disassembly
The provision of crown and bridgework for patients can
be time consuming and expensive. Whilst there are ties
when teeth associated with crowns or bridges are be-
yond salvage, e.g. gross caries and severe periodontal
bone loss, there are circumstances where a conservative
approach to crown and bridge removal may aid the cli-
nician and/or reduce the fnancial burden on the patient.
These include:
a. Endodontics: Endodontic treatment or re-treatment
completed with an access cavity cut through an extra-
coronal restoration may contribute to failure. Without
its removal, a clinician cannot be absolutely certain of
eliminating contributing pathological factors which may
not be apparent from a clinical or radiographic exami-
nation. Even with the use of operating microscopes,
endodontic access through a crown or bridge abutment
is more diffcult and destruction of unnecessary tooth
structure is more likely. Further advantage include: bet-
ter visualization of tooth morphology, ease of radiogra-
phic interpretation of the chamber and better visualiza-
tion of fractures (15).
b. Failure of cementation of a retainer(s) on an otherwise
sound bridge. Consideration should always be given to
the reason for the failure before recementation. Whilst
this is outside the remit of this article reasons include:
Inadequate tooth preparation. 1.
Poor ft of the restoration. 2.
Poor cementation. 3.
Occlusal factors. 4.
Differential mobility between abutments. 5.
Inappropriate design of restoration. 6.
Inappropriate choice of cementation material. 7.
Biological Mechanical Aesthetical
1.Caries 1. Cementation failure 1.Colour
2.Endodontic treatment. 2. Defective margins 2. Contour.
3.Endodontic re-treatment 3.Post and core failure under crowns/bridges.
4.Periodontal 4. Precision attachment breakages.
5.Occlusion 5. Fractured porcelain facings
6. Metal allergies.
Table 1. Classifcation of causes of crown and bridge failures.
e169
J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. Crown and bridge removal.
c. Decementation of one retainer of a resin-retained brid-
ge where a fxed-fxed design is considered necessary.
This may include post-orthodontic treatment in patients
suffering from hypodontia or cleft palate.
d. The retrieval of cement-retained crown and bridge
suprastructures on implants, following loosening of an
abutment screw underneath the restoration. The inciden-
ce of this is low (4%) (22-24) but could be a potentially
expensive complication if the supra structure could not
be retrieved.
e. Decementation of resin-retained bridgework being
utilized as a provisional restoration during the stages of
providing a single tooth implant- retained crown.
f. Crowns and (to a lesser extent) bridges are occasio-
nally designed with milled surfaces or intra- or extra-
coronal precision attachments incorporated. Destructive
removal of such structures can render the denture unusa-
ble and be costly and time consuming to replace. Con-
servative removal may allow them to be reused.
g. removal of temporary or provisional crowns and brid-
ges is not always straightforward. Conservative removal
may be benefcial to a treatment plan where their re-use
is important.
h. Large span bridges on multiple retainers in which one
or more are failing and require removal. Destruction of
the entire prosthesis may make temporization diffcult.
Considerations before Deciding on a Crown
Removing System
For deciding on a particular system, a careful assessment
of the patient and the status of his/her teeth need to be
made. One should consider the following things prior to
crown and bridge removal (Table 2).
accessibility else there might be damage to the opposing
dentition. Knowledge of the underlying core material is
also very useful when considering applying traction for-
ces. This, however, is not always possible as you may be
removing another clinicians work. Misdirected forces
could damage the underlying tooth or core. Forces of re-
moval should be applied along the path of withdrawal to
reduce the risk of abutment fracture. A risk assessment
between salvaging the restoration and risking damage
to the supporting abutment needs to be done. Aesthe-
tic failures such as fractured porcelain facings, could be
managed more economically if the crown or bridgework
was retrievable, particularly if intra-oral attempts (26) of
repair had been unsuccessful.
Crown and Bridge Disassembly Classifcation
There are different mechanisms available to remove a
failed crown or bridge. But there is no information pu-
blished about the classifcation of available systems for
crown and bridge removal. So it is logical to classify
these systems into different groups which can help a cli-
nician in choosing a particular type of system depending
upon the clinical situation. The systems can be grouped
into three categories:
1. Conservative: Prosthesis remains intact. It works in
general by applying a percussion or traction force, brea-
king the luting cement and enabling the prosthesis to be
removed.
2. Semi- conservative: Minor damage to the prosthesis
is done but still it could potentially be reused. These te-
chniques involve cutting a small hole in the prosthesis,
enabling a force to be applied between the preparation
and the bridge to break the luting cement.
3. Destructive: Prosthesis damaged and not reusable.
The crowns is sectioned which enable sit to be levered
off (1) (Table 3).
I. Conservative Disassembly
1. Richwill crown and bridge remover:
It is a thermoplastic resin that has been advocated for the
removal of crowns and bridges (27).The resin is softened
in hot water then placed interoclusally. Patient is asked
to bit on it till the resin block gets compressed to two-
thirds its bulk. This is then cooled with water with triple
spray syringe until it is hard. Patient is now instructed
to open mouth rapidly and forcefully. This technique
has been reported to be 100% successful for temporary
1. Medical contra-indications 2. Restorability of retainers
3. Periodontal status 4. Intra-oral access
5. Status of underlying core 6. Cement lute used
7. Crown and bridge materials
Table 2. Factors considered prior to crown and bridge removal.
The use of ultrasonics is contraindicated in patients with
hepatitis-B, herpes and cardiac pacemakers (25). Perio-
dontal support and mobility is assessed before conside-
ring the use of a technique. The restorability of the tooth
is also considered. The intra-oral accessibility is also
considered because some techniques require adequate
CONSERVATIVE SEMI-CONSERVATIVE DESTRUCTIVE
1. Richwill crown and bridge remover 1. Wamkey 1. Tungsten carbide burs
2. Ultrasonics 2. Metalift crown and bridge removal system 2. Burs and Christenson crown remover
3. Pneumatic (KaVo) CORONA fex 3. Higa bridge remover
4. Sliding hammer
5. Crown tractors
6. Matrix bands.
Table3. Classifcation of crown and bridge removal systems.
e170
J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. Crown and bridge removal.
crowns (28) and 60% successful for the dislodgement of
cast restorations in conjunction with the application of
ultrasonic energy.
2.Ultrasonics:
The application of ultrasonic energy to remove cast res-
torations by disrupting the cement lute is based on its
effcacy in removing metal posts (29). The application
of ultrasonic energy alone, or in conjunction with other
techniques, can be successful in removing restorations.
3.Pneumatic (KaVo) CORONAfex:
The technique for removing bridges using brass wire
threaded through bridge embrasures to form a loop on to
which a force can be applied to dislodge a bridge is not
without its risks (18). These are similar to the use of the
sliding hammer designed crown and bridge removers.
Cores could be fractured and periodontally involved
teeth could be extracted. The CORONA fex crown and
bridge remover is a modifcation of this approach.
It is an air-driven device that connects to standard dental
airline. It works by delivering a controlled low ampli-
tude shock at its tip along the long axis of the abutment
tooth. The loop is threaded under the connector and the
tip of the crown remover is placed on the bar. The impact
is activated by removing the index fnger from the air
valve on the hand piece. The kit also includes clamps
that can be attached to individual crowns with autopoly-
merizing resins; the impact is subsequently applied via
the clamp to dislodge the crown (1).
4. Sliding Hammer:
The basic principle of sliding hammer is that a suitable
tip is selected to engage the crown margin and then a
weight is slid along the shaft in a series of short, quick
taps to loosen the restoration. Various sliding hammer
designs are available in market. The use of this system
can be uncomfortable for the patients and their use has
been considered less reliable. This technique is not re-
commended for patients with periodontally involved
teeth owing to the risk of unintended extraction. Dama-
ge to porcelain margins is also likely with such techni-
ques (1) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
5. Crown Tractors:
Crown tractors grip the restoration with the aid of rubber
grips and powder designed to dislodge the restoration
without damaging the restoration. This is a particu-
larly effective system for removing provisional crowns,
crowns that have been cemented with temporary cement,
or crowns that are diffcult to remove at the try-in stage.
The soft grip reduces the risk of damaging porcelain
margins (1).
6. Matrix Bands:
The application of a Siqveland Matrix Band over the
crown, which is burnished into the undercuts and then
pulled vertically, can be a successful technique for care-
ful removal (30). (Fig. 3)
Fig. 1. Sliding Hammer Type Crown Remover with different attaching
tips.
Fig. 2. Conservatively removed cantilevered bridge which can be
re-used again.
Fig. 3. Siqveland Matrix Band.
II. Semi-Conservative Disassembly
Attempts to remove restorations as mentioned above wi-
thout damaging it may not be successful or the pulling
device may be unpleasant experience for the patient. A
semi-conservative approach is applied in such cases in
which a small amount of damage is done to the restora-
tion; the advantage is that this then allows a more con-
trolled and less traumatic application of force to dislod-
ge the casting.
e171
J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. Crown and bridge removal.
1. Wamkeys:
Wamkeys are simple narrow-shanked cam devices avai-
lable in three sizes. The clinician cuts a hole through the
crown or retainer parallel to the occlusal surface and at
the imagined level of the underlying core. A suitably si-
zed wamkey is inserted with the broadest surface of the
cam parallel to the occlusal surface, until it is centra-
lly placed when it is rotated about the axis of the shank
through 90 degrees. The force produced should be in the
path of insertion of the crown or retainer which is easily
dislodged. It is important not to attempt to lever off the
crown with the instrument and it can be diffcult to loca-
te the interface between the occlusal surface of the core;
the approach should be frst to identify the cement layer
before extending the channel across the occlusal surface.
The restoration can be recemented and the hole flled
with plastic flling material (1).
2. Metalift System:
This system is based on the jack-screw principle; a
precision hole is drilled through the occlusal surface of a
cast restoration, the area around the periphery of the hole
is undermined before a threaded screw is wound into the
space (1,28). A thread is cut in the metal of the casting
and, when the instrument is stopped from advancing by
contact with the underlying core, continued rotation of
the screw results in a jacking force that displaces the
crown from the preparation.
Metal ceramic prosthesis can be removed using this sys-
tem, although care should be taken to remove enough
ceramic from the area where the hole is to be drilled so
as to minimize the risk of fracture. The minimum thick-
ness of metal required is approximately 0.5mm the com-
plete kit includes precision attachments to make good
the hole prior to re-cementation. The damage is repaired
with a plastic flling material.
III. Destructive Disassembly
Disassembly by means of cutting through the crown
with a tungsten carbide diamond bur is probably com-
mon practice for most clinicians. Confning the slot to
the labial surface, and applying an ultrasonic instrument
to disrupt the cement lute, can provide space to elevate
the crown and bridge so that it remains intact. Where ad-
hesive cements are used it becomes necessary to section
through the lingual surface as well, which will destroy
the crown completely.
Whilst excavators and Mitchells Trimmers can be used,
a useful instrument for this fnal stage is the Christenson
Crown Remover. The application of such a crown split-
ter spreads the split evenly, reducing the stress on the
tooth/core (1).
Conclusion
The article emphasized on general issues and concepts
in crown and bridge disassembly, whilst at the same time
focused on some specifc devices and systems. Success
lies in careful treatment planning; there will be situa-
tions where conservative approach is advantageous and
situations where such attempts are contra-indicated.
None of the systems mentioned here are universally
applicable. Therefore, it is important to adopt a fexible
approach, that is, when you fail in removing crown and
bridge by using one system then other systems should
be tried. Patients should be made aware, at the outset of
treatment, of the unpredictability of attempts at conser-
vative and semi-conservative crown and bridge removal,
and that there is always the possibility that a destructive
approach is required. It is also very important to make
risk-beneft analysis when considering conservative or
semi-conservative disassembly and inform the patient of
those risks.
References
Addy LD, Bartley A, Hayes SJ. Crown and bridge disassembly- 1.
when, why and how. Dent Update. 2007;34:140-2, 145-6, 149-50.
Walton JN, Gardner FM, Agar JR. A survey of crown and fxed par- 2.
tial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement.
J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56:416-21.
Ericson G, Nilson H, Bergman B. Cross-sectional study of patients 3.
ftted with fxed partial dentures with special reference to the caries
situation. Scand J Dent Res. 1990;98:8-16.
Libby G, Arcuri MR, LaVelle WE, Hebl L. Longevity of fxed par- 4.
tial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:127-31.
Sundh B, Odman P. A study of fxed prosthodontics performed 5.
at a university clinic 18 years after insertion. Int J Prosthodont.
1997;10:513-9.
Priest GF. Failure rates of restorations for single-tooth replace- 6.
ment. Int J Prosthodont. 1996;9:38-45.
Sorensen JA. A rationale for comparison of plaque-retaining pro- 7.
perties of crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:264-9.
Gregory WA, Hagen CA, Powers JM. Composite resin re- 8.
pair of porcelain using different bonding materials. Oper Dent.
1988;13:114-8.
9. Barreto MT, Bottaro BF. A practical approach to porcelain repair. 9.
J Prosthet Dent. 1982;48:349-51.
Welsh SL, Schwab JT. Repair technique for porcelain-fused-to- 10.
metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1977;38:61-5.
Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES. A systematic review of 11.
the survival and complication rates of fxed partial dentures (FPDs)
after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 2004;15:654-66.
Creugers NH, Kyser AF, van t Hof MA. A meta-analysis of du- 12.
rability data on conventional fxed bridges. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol. 1994;22:448-52.
Scurria MS, Bader JD, Shugars DA. Meta-analysis of fxed par- 13.
tial denture survival: prostheses and abutments. J Prosthet Dent.
1998;79:459-64.
Pruitt CO. A review of methods and instrumentation for re- 14.
moving crowns and bridges from prepared teeth. Gen Dent.
1994;42:320-6.
Parreira FR, OConnor RP, Hutter JW. Cast prosthesis removal 15.
using ultrasonics and a thermoplastic resin adhesive. J Endodo.
1994; 20:141-3.
Sutherland JK, Cheeseman SL. Multiple prosthodontic uses for 16.
permanent crown remover forceps. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:99-
101.
Loney RW. Practical uses for provisional crown remover for- 17.
ceps in fxed and removable prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent.
1992;67:734-6.
Williamson RT, Breeding LC. Removing a cemented fxed prosthe- 18.
sis using a crown remover. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69:634-5.
e172
J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(3):e167-72. Crown and bridge removal.
Williams FB, Portera JJ, Stephens AP. Removing a cemented 19.
metal-ceramic fxed prosthesis without damage: a custom-made
appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;51:656-9.
Walton J. Gardner F, Agar J. A survey of crown and fxed partial 20.
denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J
Prosthet Dent. 1986; 56:416-21.
Reuter J, Brose MO. Failures in full crown retained dental bridges. 21.
Br. Dent J. 1984;157:61-3.
Higuchi KW, Folmer T, Kultje C. Implant survival rates in partially 22.
edentulous patients: a 3-year prospective multicenter study. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53:264-8.
Gunne J, Astrand P, Ahlen K, Borg K, Olsson M. Implants in par- 23.
tially edentulous patients. A longitudinal study of bridges suppor-
ted by both implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res.
1992;3:49-56.
Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U. A prospective 5-year study of fxed 24.
partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-
blasted surface. J Prosthodont. 2001;10:2-7.
Trenter SC, Walmsley AD. Ultrasonic dental scaler: associated ha- 25.
zards. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30:95-101.
Burke FJ. Repair of metal-ceramic restorations using an abrasi- 26.
ve silica-impregnating technique: two case reports. Dent Update.
2002;29:398-402.
Oliva RA. Clinical evaluation of a new crown and fxed partial 27.
denture remover. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;44:267-9.
Westerman RD. A new paradigm for the construction and service 28.
of fxed prosthodontics. Dent Today. 1999;18:62-9.
Abbott PV. Incidence of root fractures and methods used for post 29.
removal. Int Endod J. 2002;35:63-7.
McCullock AJ. Dental demolition. Dent Update. 1992;19:255-62. 30.