IP Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Print ISSN: 2581-4796

Online ISSN: 2581-480X

IP Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry (APRD) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing since 2015 and is published under the Khyati Education and Research Foundation (KERF), is registered as a non-profit society (under the society registration act, 1860), Government of India with the vision of various accredited vocational courses in healthcare, education, paramedical, yoga, publication, teaching and research activity, with the aim of faster and better dissemination more...

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article statistics

Viewed: 94

PDF Downloaded: 28

Chaudhary and Kumar: Anterior fracture tooth management using richmond crown-A case report


In the teen and young adult years, dental injuries result from motor vehicle accidents, sports, and accidental falls. The largest number of dental injuries to young male enlisted occurring after school hours as a result of fistfights.1 A fourth of the dental injuries in public schools have been observed to be due to fighting and pushing.2 The maxillary central incisor is the most vulnerable tooth, accounting for around 80% of all dental injuries, followed by the maxillary lateral and mandibular central and lateral incisors.3 In cases where the remaining crown structure is not sufficient to retain the full coverage crown, post and core is a treatment option to increase the retention and resistance form of tooth.4 The major concern with the post and core procedure is a fracture of post or root, dislodgement of post-core assembly, loss of the restorative seal, and injury to the periodontium.5, 6 The situation may be further worsening in a patient with deep bite, which leads to maximum oblique forces. In such cases, there should be adequate core reduction, so that the required thickness for a metal ceramic crown can be obtained for better esthetics.4 In 1878, the Richmond crown was introduced with a threaded tube incorporated into the root canal with a screw‑retained crown. The Richmond crown was indicated for a grossly decayed single tooth with very much reduced crown height and with increased deep bite and decreased overjet.7 This case report discusses a patient who had a broken central incisor and a limited interocclusal space who was treated with the Richmond crown using a simple and minimally invasive approach.

Case Report

A 16-year-old male patient reported to the Department of Prosthodontics and Crown ­& with an endodontically treated maxillary right central incisor and a cracked crown (Figure 1). The patient competed in sports and injured his front tooth 20 days ago. A crown fracture was discovered during a clinical examination, and endodontic treatment was performed. Percussion on the tooth indicated no tenderness and radiographic evaluation demonstrated a satisfactory apical seal endodontically (Figure 2). The diagnostic impressions were taken and a model analysis was performed to determine the amount of restoration space available. To restore the tooth to normal function and aesthetics, an increased overbite and decreased overjet were discovered, therefore the patient was given a Richmond crown with tooth 11. The patient was informed about the complete treatment plan and gave his agreement.

Figure 1

Pre- Operative View

Figure 2

Pre -Operative X-ray


Coronal 2/3 of Gutta percha was removed and Post space was prepared with the help of Peeso reamer leaving 1/3 of GP in apical portion of root (Mani Inc., Tochigi, Japan), and an antirotational groove and finish line were made. Canal was coated with light body impression material (Ornawash L) and then a small piece of orthodontic wire, coated with light body was placed in the canal. Later light body was injected around the prepared tooth, putty impression material (Zhermack zetaplus, Badia Polestine, Italy) was loaded in stock tray and final impression is made and It was then poured with die stone and cast was obtained [Figure 3, Figure 4]. The wax pattern on the cast, the post and core were all made using an indirect procedure, and try in was done in the patient's mouth. The pattern was seated and examined on the cast, and the patient's mouth was tried once again. [Figure 5]. An intraoral periapical radiograph was taken to check the proper seating of the post and core, finally ceramic build was done over the core and shade selection B2 were finalized [Figure 6]. After checking for adequate margin adaption and aesthetics, the Richmond crown was cemented with glass ionomer cement (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan).) [Figure 7, Figure 8].

Figure 3

Maxillary impression post space

Figure 4

Master Cast showing post space

Figure 5

Cast post try in done

Figure 6

Ceramic build up over post

Figure 7

Post-operative view

Figure 8

Post-Operative X-Ray



Adhesive material development created newer perspective in fractured teeth reconstruction. Nowadays the reattachment of fractured tooth is successful because of the advancement in the development of bonding agents, which is essential to have good bonding to the tooth structure. Biological circumstances, various materials used, and the methods used are all carefully monitored and maintained throughout reattachment. Whenever possible the fractured segment should be reattached and should be the first choice. The benefits of reattachment are that it will give the patient a positive psychological response, that it will be less expensive than other treatment options such as extraction and replacement, that the colour of the fractured tooth in reattachment will match the adjacent tooth, and that the original contour will be preserved.8, 9 The Richmond crown is a castable customized single‑unit post and crown system with ceramic layer over the crown coping.10 To increase the mechanical resistance and retention, a ferrule collar is incorporated which provides the antirotational effect.11 This design has advantages such as they are custom‑fitted to the root configuration, there was little or no stress at the cervical margin, and also they provide high strength and considerable space for ceramic firing with enough incisal clearance. The Richmond crown has the following drawbacks: they are time intensive, necessitating more appointments for the patient; they are more expensive; and their modulus of elasticity is higher than dentine. The patient had a shattered crown central incisor with restricted interocclusal space, thus a minimally invasive approach was used, and it was decided to offer Richmond crown.


This clinical report describes the rehabilitation of a male patient with fractured maxillary central with the Richmond crowns to improve the function and esthetics with a minimally invasive procedure. There are many post-and-core materials/ techniques available to the clinician for a variety of clinical procedures and thus each clinical situation should be evaluated on an individual basis. Richmond crown is very much indicated in situations with very less incisal clearance to accommodate core + cement + crown thickness.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in this paper.

Source of Funding




RV Katz GP Barnes HR Larson TC Lyon DG Brunner Epidemiological survey of accidental dentofacial injuries among U.S. Army personnel, Community DentOral Epidemiol19797130610.1111/j.1600-0528.1979.tb01182.x


A P Carter GZoller VK Harlin CJ Johnson Dental injuries in Seattle’s public school children: school year 1969-70J Public Health Dent1972324251410.1111/j.1752-7325.1972.tb03982.x


F S Ferguson L W Ripa Prevalence and type of traumatic injuries to the anterior teeth of preschool childrenJ Pedod19794138


P Dausage K Mallikarjuna S Gupta J Marya Richmond crown esthetics importance for lost tooth structureUniv J Dent Sci20153603


G R Zuckerman Practical considerations and technical procedures for post-retained restorationsJ Prosthet Dent1996752135910.1016/s0022-3913(96)90089-x


S Sirimai D N Riis S M Morgano An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulp less teeth restored with six post-and-core systemsJ Prosthet Dent1999813262910.1016/s0022-3913(99)70267-2


P Mishra S S Mantri S Deogade P Gupta Richmond crown: A lost state of artInt J Dent Health Sci20152244853


Y Yihnaz C Zehir O Eyuboglu N Belduz Evaluation of success in the reattachment of coronal fracturesDent Traumatol2008242151810.1111/j.1600-9657.2007.00532.x


VG Macedo IP Diaz C Augusto Reattachment of anterior teeth fragments: A conservative approachJ esthetic Restor Dent20082520


Y Chakravarthy S Chamarthy Richmond crown for restoration of badly mutilated posterior teeth: A case reportJ Evid Based Med Healthc20152304500710.18410/jebmh/2015/635


A S Fernandes G S Dessai Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: A reviewInt J Prosthodont200114435563


© This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Article type

Case Report

Article page


Authors Details

Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary, Prince Kumar

Article History

Received : 21-07-2021

Accepted : 10-09-2021

Available online : 21-09-2021

Article Metrics

View Article As


Downlaod Files


Wiki in hindi