Dimensional accuracy of castings produced with ringless and metal ring

investment systems
Pelopidas Lombardas, DDS, MS,a Andres Carbunaru, DDS, MS,b Mona E. McAlarney, D Eng Sc,c and
R. W. Toothaker, DDSd
Columbia University, School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York, N.Y.
Statement of problem. The ringless casting procedure is in use in clinical dentistry, although there is
no adequate scientific data to support its use.
Purpose. This study compared the vertical margin accuracy of lost wax castings produced with the con-
ventional casting technique using a metal ring and a technique that uses a ringless system.
Material and methods. From copings fabricated on a metal die, 30 castings were produced from a
high palladium alloy for metal ceramic restorations (Argedent). Ten castings were cast with Bellavest T
(Bego) phosphate-bonded investment with the ringless technique, 10 were cast with the same investment
with a metal ring, and the final 10 were cast using Hi-temp (Whip Mix) phosphate-bonded investment
with a metal ring. The internal surface of the castings were not modified before seating with finger pres-
sure. For vertical margin discrepancy measurements, an optical microscope at a magnification of 100× was
used. Data were analyzed with 1-way multivariate ANOVA (repeated measures) and the Student-New-
man-Keuls test.
Results. When following the manufacturers’ recommendations, the castings of the ringless technique
provided less vertical margin discrepancy (mean value 181 ± 71 µm) than the castings produced with the
conventional metal ring technique (290 ± 87 µm and 291 ± 88 µm). The difference was significant
(P<.001).
Conclusion. The ringless technique may produce accurate castings for use in fixed prosthodontics,
therefore further investigation is needed to develop a protocol for its use. (J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:27-31.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study revealed that, in terms of seating accuracy, the ringless and
metal ring investing procedures can produce clinically acceptable castings.

T aggart first described the lost wax casting process in

dentistry in 1907 and observed that the resultant restora-
tions were undersized.1-3 The accuracy of fit of a cast
restoration is essential for its longevity because it allows
for less plaque accumulation at the marginal area, pro-
vides better mechanical properties (stability, resistance),
less cement space (less possibilities for leakage), and
improves the esthetic result.4-6 The accuracy of fit is
affected by the quality of the preparation (undercuts,
taper of the preparation), the impression, the working
cast, the quality of the wax that is used for the lost wax
technique, and by the accuracy of the castings. At this last
step, it is essential to achieve compensation for the shrink-
age of the solidifying alloy by investment expansion. This
aStaff Prosthodontist, School of Dentistry, University of Athens,
Athens, Greece.
bPrivate Practice, Caracas, Venezula.
cAssistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics.
dAssociate Professor and Director, Postdoctoral Prosthodontics,
Department of Adult Restorative Dentistry, University of Nebraska,
Medical Center, Lincoln, Neb.
method of compensation was scientifically studied in the
1920s by Weinstein and Coleman at the US National
Bureau of Standards.7,8 The investment initially used was
a gypsum-bonded–type investment. Today, 3 methods of
compensation for the metal shrinkage on cooling are in
regular use9: (1) setting expansion of the investment, (2)
hygroscopic expansion of the investment, and (3) thermal
expansion of the investment.
Gypsum alone can be heated to temperatures as
high as 1200°C without decomposing,1,10,11 making it
sufficiently heat-resistant, to be used without adding
other refractory materials. However, gypsum at this
temperature shrinks noticeably, so silica is added to the
investment to compensate for this condition. Silica is
usually thought of as the refractory component in an
investment but reduces the heat resistance of gyp-
sum.1,7,8,12 Silica is added to control the dimensional
changes when the investment is heated, yet it also
reduces the compressive strength and makes the use of
a metal ring necessary to protect the investment dur-
ing casting forces.2,13,14

JULY 2000 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 27

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 1. Metal die used in study.
The metal casting ring restricts the thermal expan-
sion of the investment because the thermal expansion
of the ring is less than that of the investment. To com-
pensate for this limitation, an asbestos liner was rec-
ommended.5,15-17 The asbestos liner that was in use
for many years was abandoned because asbestos is
associated with carcinogenesis.18,19 Paper ceramic lin-
ers are used as a substitute.20-22
The introduction of ceramometal technology made
the use of higher melting temperature alloys necessary
to withstand the firing cycle of porcelain without
noticeable distortion, and led to the development and
use of investments that can resist higher temperatures
and higher stresses during casting.23-25 The phos-
phate-bonded investments fulfill these requirements.
These are investments where the binder is phosphate
compounds. They consist of 3 types of components,
each of which is responsible for certain characteristic
properties. One component consists of materials that
are soluble in water to yield a phosphate ion. The sec-
ond component consists of materials that react with
phosphate ions at room temperature. The third is a
ceramic substance that hardens at a high temperature
and is responsible for high temperature strength.
These investments can be mixed with water or with a
special liquid or with a combination. The special liquid
is a form of silica sol in water. When mixed with the sil-
ica sol, the phosphate-bonded investments exhibit a
higher setting expansion than when mixed with water.
Most technicians use different proportions of a mix-
ture of water and silica sol to get the desired expan-
sion. When mixed only with water, the investments do
not show hygroscopic expansion, whereas when mixed
with silica sol they do. However, there are some phos-
phate-bonded investments that do not show hygro-
scopic expansion, even when mixed with silica sol. The
thermal expansion curves of phosphate-bonded invest-
ments show more irregularities than the gypsum-
bonded investments. Initially, phosphate-bonded
28
LOMBARDAS ET AL
investments were treated with the same techniques as
used with the gypsum-bonded investments. The need
of the casting ring for the phosphate-bonded invest-
ments was not questioned, because its use was a stan-
dard procedure.26,27 The use of the casting ring was
challenged with the introduction of a ringless tech-
nique initially for phosphate-bonded investments for
removable partial denture frameworks and, recently,
for conventional fixed restorations and even experi-
mentally for implant-connected frameworks.28,29 The
high strength of the material makes it possible to aban-
don the use of the casting ring. The ringless tech-
niques are easier, less expensive, and give clinically
acceptable castings.28 In the literature, there are few
studies comparing the 2 casting techniques for fixed
restorations.28
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare
the fit of single full-coverage restorations made with 2
investing techniques to ascertain whether the ringless
technique can be routinely used for the fabrication of
cast restorations. To all possible variances that resulted
from the use of materials and techniques, such as gyp-
sum, used for the production of gypsum dies, die spac-
er, and impression materials, a metal die was used in
which all waxing and measurements were made. The
null hypothesis was that there will be no significant dif-
ference in the accuracy of fit of the castings produced
by either technique.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
On a metal die 30 copings were made and divided
into 3 groups of 10 copings. For the first and third
group, a metal ring was used for investing and casting,
whereas for the second, a ringless system was used. The
copings were seated on the metal die and the accuracy
of fit was evaluated by measuring the gap between the
finish line and the margins of the copings on 4 specific
sites with the use of an optical microscope.
A first mandibular right molar from a demonstra-
tion Columbia Dentoform (Columbia Dentoform,
Long Island, N.Y.) was prepared for a full porcelain-
fused-to-metal restoration with a chamfer finish line.
An impression was made using a custom tray fabricat-
ed with a light-curing material (Triad, Dentsply, Mil-
ford, Del.) and a vinyl polysiloxane material (Aquasil,
Dentsply). The impression was filled with an auto-
cured ethyl methacrylate material (GC Pattern, GC
Dental Industrial Corp, Tokyo, Japan) so that an
acrylic resin copy of the preparation was produced.
This copy was invested on a phosphate-bonded invest-
ment and cast with chromium cobaltous alloy (Vitalli-
um) commonly used for removable partial denture
metal frameworks. This metal die (Fig. 1) was used for
the construction of 30 copings using the Dentsply
Vacu-press system (Dentsply). Margins were then sealed
with conventional casting wax (margin wax, MDL Wax
VOLUME 84 NUMBER 1
LOMBARDAS ET AL THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Fig. 2. Wax pattern on metal die. Fig. 3. Casting on metal die.

Co, Baltimore, Md. ) (Fig. 2). The whole procedure

was designed to resemble standard procedures com-
monly used at commercial dental laboratories.
The 30 copings were divided into 3 groups of 10.
The first group was invested using Hi-Temp carbon-
free phosphate-bonded investment (60 g/9.5 mL,
with 75% liquid to water ratio Whip Mix Corp,
Louisville, Ky.) with a metal ring of 2.5 cm diameter
and a ceramic paper liner that was wetted for 1 minute
(Bego Wilh Herbst Gmbh Co, Bremen, Germany),
according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.
The second group was invested with Belavest T phos-
phate-bonded investment (60 g/14 mL, with 70% liq-
uid-to-water ratio, Bego), according to the manufac-
turer’s recommendations, with a plastic ring of 3 cm
diameter. The third group was invested using Bellavest Fig. 4. Diagram of stone holder and metal die.
T phosphate-bonded investment (Bego) with a metal
ring of 2.5 cm of diameter and a ceramic paper liner
(Bego), according to the manufacture’s recommenda- The castings were cut from their buttons and seat-
tions. The water-to-liquid ratio used for each group ed on the metal die using only finger pressure applied
was decided after some trial castings within the manu- by the same “blind” operator (Fig. 3). No adjustment
facturer recommendations so that the best clinically of the internal surface of the castings was performed.
acceptable fit was achieved for each group. All invest- Our goal in the design of this study was to eliminate
ments used had the same lot number. Each coping was all possible variables such as die spacer thickness,
invested individually in 1 ring each, immediately after expansion of die stone, and polymerization shrinkage.
its fabrication. The investments were hand mixed for For that reason, the metal die was used for waxing and
15 to 20 seconds and then mechanically mixed for measuring the seating accuracy. This introduces a lim-
30 seconds using the Degussa vacuum mixer itation in terms of clinical interpretation. However,
(Degusa Corp, South Plainfield, N.J.). Each “ring” following through with this philosophy meant that we
was left in a dry pressure pot for 5 minutes. After 10 should have a standard force to seat the castings on the
minutes of initial setting, the molds of the ringless metal die. Instead, the study was made to be more
group were removed from the plastic rings. After 1 “relevant” to everyday dental practice by using the lab-
hour of air drying, they were all placed in the same oratory technician that was involved in the study to
oven (10°C/1 min soak temperature 260°C and seat the castings with finger pressure.
final soak temperature 815°C) and cast with a high The margin discrepancy between the metal die and
palladium metal-ceramic alloy (Argedent 52SF the castings was measured on an optical microscope
Argen Precious Metals Inc). Castings were divested (Nikon microflex model PFM, Tokyo, Japan) for accu-
with sandblasting with 50-µm glass beads and then racy of measurements (2 µm, precision of measure-
steam cleaned. ments 0.5 µm) at a magnification of 100×. Measure-

JULY 2000 29
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Table I. Vertical margin discrepancy between die and cast-
ings measured at buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal sites
Whip Mix Bego without
using a ring a ring
(µm ± SD) (µm ± SD)
Buccal 286 ± 72 142 ± 65*
Lingual 287 ± 93 179 ± 51*
Mesial 276 ± 80 209 ± 68
Distal 31 ± 114 195 ± 86*
Mean value 290 ± 87 181 ± 71*
Asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference between materials
and/or technique at that site.
ments were made on predetermined areas that were
marked on the metal die, on the buccal, mesial, lingual,
and distal surfaces of the die. A stone base sample hold-
er was constructed to maintain the major axis of the
metal die parallel to the focal plane. This holder mini-
mized gap measurement errors because of out-of-plane
rotation (Fig. 4). All measurements were executed by
the same “blind” operator and each site was measured
10 nonconsecutive times. Mean value of these measure-
ments was used for the statistical analysis.
Measurements of vertical discrepancies between the
castings and die at the 4 sites on the castings (buccal,
lingual, mesial, and distal) were considered repeated
measures on the castings. One-way multivariate analy-
sis of variance (ANOVA) (repeated measures) was run
to test whether the differences in the mean values of
vertical discrepancies are greater than would be
expected by chance (P<.001). After the ANOVA, the
Student-Newman-Keuls test was performed as the
multiple comparison procedure to isolate the group or
groups that differ from the others.
RESULTS
The vertical margin discrepancies at the buccal, lin-
gual, mesial, and distal sites are presented in Table I.
There was no significant difference between the 4
measured sites for a particular investment material
and technique. For each site, and the mean of all
sites, the use of Bego investment without a metal
casting ring produced statistically significant smaller
vertical discrepancies. The only exception to the
above is the mesial site in which all 3 material and
technique combinations provided equivalent vertical
discrepancies.
DISCUSSION
Although the ringless casting technique is in use in
fixed prosthodontics and implant prosthodontics,
there are few investigations about the technique in the
literature, and the accuracy of the castings depends on
the skills of the technicians and is clinically deter-
mined by the dentists. There is no scientific data to
30
LOMBARDAS ET AL
support the use of this technique. This study is a pilot
study (clinically oriented) to determine whether the
Bego using technique produces acceptable results.
a ring Although the metal ring technique is clinically
(µm ± SD)
acceptable and allows for the fabrication of accurate
292 ± 90 casts, the metal ring restricts the setting and thermal
274 ± 86 expansion of the investment,3,14,16 which is necessary
291 ± 101 to compensate for the shrinkage of the metal on solid-
308 ± 82 ification. To overcome this expansion restriction, a
291 ± 88 soft liner is used.5,14 The ringless technique for invest-
ing and casting has been in use for many years for the
fabrication of frameworks for removable partial den-
tures.22 It was introduced in fixed prosthodontics
technology.22 With the use of a ringless technique,
the restriction of thermal expansion that is associated
with the presence of the metal ring is avoided. In this
study, the margin discrepancy of castings produced
with the ringless technique and the conventional tech-
nique using the metal ring were compared.
Throughout our study, the recommendations of
the manufacturers were followed and the adjustment
of the internal surfaces of the castings was not per-
formed. The results indicate that, within the condi-
tions of the study, the castings produced by the ring-
less technique fit better than the castings, using the
conventional metal ring technique.
A similar amount of discrepancy was achieved in
recent studies in which the internal surface of the
castings were also not touched.30 The mean open-
ings of 181 to 291 µm is large. The explanation
given was that (1) no die spacer was used so the
castings bind more on the axial walls of the metal
die, and (2) no adjustments were made on the inter-
nal surfaces of the castings. In this investigation, 1
casting of each group was adjusted on the internal
surface as a pilot investigation after the original
measurements. No difference in the margin discrep-
ancy could be found after the adjustment of the
internal surface and all measurements were at the
range of 15 to 35 µm. From the results and condi-
tions of the study, a hypothesis can be made that the
ringless technique allows for more expansion of the
investment and therefore produces castings that
bind less on the die. Further investigation should be
performed without using the investment manufac-
turers’ specifications but by customizing the water-
to-liquid ratio. The results of this study support the
clinical use of this technique for fixed restorations
and may prove to be acceptable for implant-sup-
ported restorations as well. It should be mentioned,
however, that the conventional metal ring investing
technique is well documented and proven to give
acceptable castings and should not be abandoned.
The study was made to test the “new” ringless tech-
nique that was proved to be also acceptable in terms
of fit accuracy.
VOLUME 84 NUMBER 1
LOMBARDAS ET AL
CONCLUSIONS
Within the conditions of this study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The vertical margin discrepancy of the ringless
group for the buccal, the lingual, and the distal sites
were significantly less than that of the 2 ring groups
(P<.001).
2. There was no significant difference of the vertical
margin discrepancy between the 2 metal ring groups.
3. There was no significant difference in the vertical
margin discrepancy at the buccal, lingual, mesial, and
distal surfaces within the same group.
4. The ringless technique was clinically acceptable
and can be used for the fabrication of fixed prostho-
dontic restorations. Further investigation should be
conducted to be determined whether it can be used for
the fabrication of implant-supported prostheses.
We thank Mr George Thoupos of PG Dental Lab for his assis-
tance during the laboratory procedures of this work.
REFERENCES
1. Morey EF. Dimensional accuracy of gold alloy castings. Part 3. Gypsum-
bonded investment expansion. Aust Dent J 1992:37:43-54.
2. Taggart WH. A new and accurate method of making gold inlays. Dent
Cosmos 1907;49:1117-21.
3. Hollenback GM. A brief history of cast restoration. J South Calif State
Dent Assoc 1962;30:8-18.
4. Bjorn AL, Bjorn H, Grkovic B. Marginal fit of restorations and its relation
to periodontal bone level. II. Crowns. Odontol Revy 1970;21:337-46.
5. Morris H. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Project
No. 242. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the margin fit of cast
ceramic, porcelain-shoulder, and cast metal full crown margins. Partici-
pants of CSP No. 147/242. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:198-204.
6. Shillingburg HT Jr, Hobo S, Whitsett L. Fundamentals of fixed prostho-
dontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 1981.
7. Hollenback GM, Shell JS. A further evaluation of the theory of compen-
sation. J South Calif Dent Assoc 1965;33:315-7.
8. Morey EF. Dimensional accuracy of gold alloy castings. Part 2. Gold
alloy shrinkage. Aust Dent J 1991;36:391-6.
9. Morey EF. Dimensional accuracy of gold alloy castings. Part 1. A brief
history and the behaviour on inlay waxes. Aust Dent J 1991;36:302-9.
10. Earnshaw R. Investments for casting cobalt chromium alloys. Br Dent J
1960;108:389-96,429-40.
11. Matsuya S, Yamane M. Decomposition of gypsum bonded investments. J
Dent Res 1981;60:1418-23.
12. Earnshaw R. Inlay casting investments. In: O’Brien WJ, Ryge G, editors.
An outline of dental materials and their selection. Philadelphia: WB
Saunders; 1978. p. 259-70.
JULY 2000
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
13. Lane JG. Cast gold inlays. Dent Digest 1909;15:43-7.
14. Van Horn CS. Standardizing the investing process and simplifying the
casting process. Dent Cosmos 1911;53:1109-19.
15. Morey EF. Dimensional accuracy of gold alloy castings. Part 4. The cast-
ing ring and ring liners. Aust Dent J 1992:37:91-7.
16. Hollenback GM, Rhoads JE. A comparison of the linear expansion of
investment with the linear casting shrinkage of gold. J South Calif Dent
Assoc 1960;28:40-6.
17. Davis DR, Nguyen JH, Grey BL. Ring volume/ring liner ratio and effec-
tive setting expansion. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:403-8.
18. American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists. Threshold
limit values for chemical substances in the work environment. Cincin-
nati: ACGIH; 1986. p. 34.
19. Davis JM. A review of experimental evidence for the carcinogenicity of
man-made vitreous fibers. Scand J Work Environ Health 1986;12(Suppl
1):12-7.
20. Earnshaw R. The effect of casting ring liners on the potential expansion
of a gypsum-bonded investment. J Dent Res 1988;67:1366-70.
21. Earnshaw R, Morey EF. The fit of gold-alloy full-crown castings made
with ceramic casting ring liners. J Dent Res 1992;71:1865-70.
22. Morey EF, Earnshaw R. The fit of gold-alloy full-crown castings made
with pre-wetted casting ring liners. J Dent Res 1992;71:1858-64.
23. Craig R. Restorative dental materials. 9th ed. At Louis: Mosby–Year Book;
1993.
24. Philips RW. Skinner’s science of dental materials. 8th ed. Philadelphia:
WB Saunders; 1982.
25. Rudd K, Morrow R, Eissmann H. Dental laboratory procedures. In: Fixed
partial dentures: investing procedures. Vol II. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1981.
p. 150-8.
26. Rudd K, Morrow R, Eissmann H. Dental laboratory procedures. In:
Removable partial dentures: investment, burn out and casting. Vol III. St
Louis: CV Mosby; 1981. p. 293-320.
27. McGivney G, Castleberry D. McCracken’s eemovable partial prostho-
dontics: laboratory procedures. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1989. p. 367-426.
28. Dern WM, Himman RW, Hesby RA, Pelleu GB Jr. Effect of two-step ring-
less investment technique on alloy castability. J Prosthet Dent
1985;53:874.
29. Carr AB, Stewart RB. Full-arch implant framework casting accuracy: pre-
liminary in vitro observation for in vivo testing. J Prosthodont 1993;2:2-8.
30. Johnson A, Winstanley RB. The evaluation of factors affecting the casta-
bility of metal ceramic alloy investment combinations. Int J Prosthodont
1996;9:74-8.
Reprint requests to:
DR PELOPIDAS LOMBARDAS
21 KOLONAKIOU SQ
ATHENS 10673
HELLAS
GREECE
FAX: (3)1-3614746
E-MAIL: lombarda@otenet.gr
Copyright © 2000 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry.
0022-3913/2000/$12.00 + 0. 10/1/107783
doi:10.1067/mpr.2000.107783
31