COMPARISON OF INTER-PROIMAL CONTACT BETWEEN ALL-METAL CROWN VS PORCELAIN FUSED TO METAL CROWN IN POSTERIOR TEETH. A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Authors

  • Shafi Ullah Khan Department of Prosthodontics, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan.
  • Rubab Jawad Trial Coordinator, ORIC, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
  • Fayaz Ahmad IPH&SS, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
  • Shah Bakht Azeem Department of Public Health, IPH&SS KMU, Peshawar, Pakistan.
  • Farhad Ali Khattak IPH&SS, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
  • Ayesha Imtiaz IPH&SS, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33279/jkcd.v16i01.950

Keywords:

All-Metal crown, Contact points, Food impaction, Inter-Proximal contact, Loose inter-proximal

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency of loose Inter-Proximal Contacts (PC) in All-Metal and PFM crowns and to determine association of loose PC with age, gender, dental arch, surface of crown, duration of crown and type of crown.

Materials and Methods: This comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in Prosthodontic department of Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan. Files records of patients for the last 11 years, who received single crown or as retainer for fixed partial denture for posterior teeth and had follow up visit for the evaluation of inter-proximal contact (PC) between crown and adjacent tooth/teeth were included. Type of crown was divided into two groups; All-metal and Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crown. Outcome measure that is, type of PC was labeled as Acceptable and loose. Frequencies, chi-square and logistic regression analysis was used to determine prevalence, association and strength of association of PCs with age, gender, arch, surface, duration and type of crown.

Results: There were 150 crowns related to 100 patients. The mean age of patients was 45.1±12.1 years. Out of 150 crowns, 9 (65.3) were PFM and 52 (34.6) were All-metal crowns, leading to the assessment of 29 PCs on proximal surfaces. Among 29 PCs, 194 (69.5) were acceptable and 5 (30.5) were loose. Among PFM crowns, 36.6 of PCs were loose comparing to 20.2 in metal crowns. There was statistically significant association of type of PC with type of crown (chi =0.004, O= 2.52, 95 C 1.44.6, p=0.002), dental arch (chi=0.025, O=0.52 95 C 0.29-0.915, p=0.023), and surface of crown (chi= 0.04, O= 1., 95 C 1.004-2.91, p=0.04). No significant association of type of PC was found with gender and age.

Conclusion: In comparison with Metal crowns, PFM crowns manifested three times more loose PC.

References

Jamal S, Ghafoor R, Khan FR, Zafar K. Five year evaluation of the complications observed in porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns placed at a university hospital. JPMA. 2020;70(5): 845-850.

Michael S, McCracken, David R. Louis, Mark S. Lita- ker, Helena M. Minyé. Treatment Recommendations for Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016 November ; 147(11): 882–890.

Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, editors. Contempo- rary fi xed prosthodontics, 4th ed. St.Louis:Mosby:2006. Pg 258.

Wassel RWl, Walls AWG, Steele JG. Crowns and extra-coronal restorations: Materials selection. BDJ 2002;192(4):299-211

Glossary of prosthodontic terms: Ninth edition J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:e1–105

Oh SH, Nakano M, Bando E, Shigemoto S, Kori M. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:538–45

Kim DS, Rothchild JA, Suh KW. An evaluation and adjustment method for natural proximal contacts of crowns using diamond dental strips: a case report. Gen Dent.2013;61(5):60-3.

Durr-E-Sadaf, Ahmad Z. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns and caries in adjacent teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2011;21:134–7.

Peng M, Zhu Z, Yang . Investigation and treatment of food impaction. Journal of Oral Science Research. 2005;21:462–464.

Khairnar M. Classification of food impaction-revisited and its management. Indian Journal of Dental Advancements. 2013;5:1113–9.

McCracken MS, Litaker MS, Gordan VV, Karr T, Sowell E, Gilbert GH; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group Remake Rates for Single-Unit Crowns in Clinical Practice: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):122-130.

Nagarsekar A, Gaunkar R, Aras M. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of dental professionals regarding the effect and management of food impaction associated with fixed partial denture prostheses: A survey J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Oct-Dec; 16(4): 372–379.

Almalki, AD, Al-Rafee, MA.Evaluation of presence of proximal contacts on recently inserted posterior crowns in different health sectors in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. JFamily Med Prim Care. 2019; 8(11):3549-53. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc73519.

Truong VM, Kim S, Yi YJ and Parkd YS. Food impaction in Dentistry: Revisited. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2023;21:229-42.

Pallavi K, Amaranath BJ, Das N, Mukherjee K, Dhanai A, Gera R. Knowledge and Attitude Among Dental And Medical Students About Interdental Oral Hygiene Maintenance. Eur. Chem. Bull. 2023;12(8): 6349-6355.

Kim DS, Lau LN, Kim JW, Yeo SL. Measurement of proximal contact of single crowns to assess interproximal relief: A pilot study. Heliyon. 2023;9(10):1-8.

Akhtar Q, Danyal S, Zareen S, Ahmed B, Maqsood M, Azad AA. Clinical evaluation of proximal contact points in fixed prosthesis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015;25:702–4

Wassell RW, Barker D and Steele JG.Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: Try-in and cementation of crowns. B D J. 2002;193(1):17-28

Jung JH, Oh SC, Dong JK. A clinical study on the oc- currence of food impaction. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2000;38:50-8.

Pappous GC, Campbell S, Goldstein G. Risk factors contributing to interproximal contact loss between an implant crown and a natural tooth. J Prosthodont. 2024;1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13992.

Oh WS, Oh J, and Valcanaia A. Open Proximal Contact with Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses Compared with Tooth-Supported Fixed Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillo Implant.2020;35(6):99-108.

Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Natural Tooth Wear Opposing to Different Prosthetic Crown Materials. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023;13(4):185–186.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-31

How to Cite

Khan, S. U., Jawad, R. ., Ahmad, F. ., Azeem, S. B. ., Khattak, F. A. ., & Imtiaz, A. . (2026). COMPARISON OF INTER-PROIMAL CONTACT BETWEEN ALL-METAL CROWN VS PORCELAIN FUSED TO METAL CROWN IN POSTERIOR TEETH. A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY. JOURNAL OF KHYBER COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, 16(01), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.33279/jkcd.v16i01.950

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 01 (2026): Journal of Khyber College of Dentistry

Section

Original Article

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Shafi Ullah Khan, Rubab Jawed, Fayaz Ahmad, Farhad Ali Khattak

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  3. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  1. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  2. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes .
  3. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.