Retention Pins
Types, placement technique, safety zones, and clinical indications for pins as accessory retention in large amalgam restorations
Table of Contents
TL;DR: Retention pins are small metal posts placed into dentinal channels drilled in the walls or floor of a prepared cavity to provide accessory retention for large amalgam restorations when conventional cavity geometry is insufficient. The most widely used type is the self-threading (TMS) pin, which cuts threads into the dentine channel as it is screwed in. Pins must be placed within the dentinal safety zone — at least 0.5 mm from the pulp and 1 mm from the outer tooth surface — to avoid perforation. Despite their historical use, pins introduce stress into dentine (crazing), reduce resistance form, and are increasingly replaced by dentine-bonded buildups using composite or resin-modified glass ionomer with adhesive systems.
- Pins provide retention, not resistance form — cavity design must still resist displacement forces
- Self-threading (TMS) pins are the most retentive; cemented pins the least
- Channel depth in dentine: 2 mm; pin projection above floor: 2 mm (standard TMS)
- Maximum 1 pin per missing cusp; more pins do not proportionally increase retention
#Overview and Indications
In a tooth with extensive coronal destruction — from caries, fracture, or previous large restorations — the remaining cavity may lack sufficient geometry to retain a direct amalgam restoration by conventional means. Flat floors, missing cusps, and absent cavity walls eliminate the parallel walls and retentive angles that amalgam normally relies upon. In these situations, retention pins provide supplemental retention by creating a mechanical connection between the restorative material and the dentine.
Pins are indicated when one or more cusps have been lost and the preparation cannot be adequately undercut or grooved to provide sufficient retention. They are a specifically amalgam-oriented technique; composite restorations rely on adhesive bonding rather than mechanical pins, and pin placement is generally contraindicated in composite buildups because the metal pin disrupts the adhesive-resin interface and may introduce stress around the bonded restoration.
The fundamental principle is that pins supplement — they do not replace — good cavity design. A well-designed preparation that provides resistance form (preventing displacement under occlusal load) remains essential; pins add retention against dislodgement in a single direction (typically vertical), but they cannot compensate for a cavity that has no walls or resistance geometry.
#Types of Retention Pins
Four types of retention pins have been described, classified by their mechanism of retention within the dentinal channel. In clinical practice today, only self-threading pins are routinely used; the others are largely of historical interest or have very specific niche applications.
A threaded pin is screwed into a slightly undersized channel in the dentine, cutting its own threads as it advances. The thread–dentine interface produces the highest retention of any pin type.
✓ High retention; rapid placement; no cement required
✗ Creates dentinal stress and crazing; requires careful torque control
A smooth or slightly roughened pin is placed into an oversized channel and retained by a luting cement (zinc phosphate, GIC, or resin). The channel is larger than the pin, so no dentinal stress is created.
✓ No dentinal crazing; gentle technique
✗ Lowest retention; cement failure leads to pin loss; technique-sensitive
A smooth pin slightly larger than the channel diameter is pressed into the dentine channel by a press-fit mechanism. Retention relies on compressive deformation of the dentine wall.
✓ No cement needed; quick placement
✗ Significant dentinal stress; risk of cracking; unreliable long-term retention
A parallel-sided pin placed into an oversized channel and luted with a dentine-bonding resin adhesive. Combines some mechanical and adhesive retention.
✓ Good retention; minimal dentinal stress; sealed channel
✗ Technique-sensitive; adhesive failure possible; limited clinical use
#Self-Threading Pins: The TMS System
The TMS (Thread Mate System) developed by Whaledent International became the industry standard for self-threading pins and remains the reference system taught in undergraduate dentistry. The TMS concept pairs a twist drill with a matching pin — the drill creates a channel slightly smaller than the pin’s thread diameter, so that when the pin is screwed in, it engages the dentine walls and cuts its own threads, creating a secure mechanical interlock.
The TMS Colour-Coding System
TMS pins come in three sizes, each colour-coded for easy identification. The colour refers to both the pin itself and the matching twist drill used to create the channel. Using the wrong drill for a given pin size is the most common technique error and will result in either a loose pin (drill too large) or a fractured pin or cracked dentine (drill too small).
| Colour | Pin Diameter | Drill Diameter | Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regular (silver) | 0.84 mm | 0.78 mm | Standard retention in posterior teeth with adequate dentine bulk |
| Minim (gold) | 0.68 mm | 0.63 mm | Reduced dentine bulk; anterior teeth; lower stress than regular |
| Minikin (red) | 0.58 mm | 0.53 mm | Very limited dentine; minimal retention required; rarely used clinically |
Standard Dimensions
A standard TMS pin is designed to extend 2 mm into dentine below the cavity floor and project 2 mm above the cavity floor into the restoration. The total pin length is therefore 4 mm, with 2 mm in dentine and 2 mm in amalgam. This 2+2 mm relationship has been validated experimentally as the optimal balance between retention and the risk of complications: deeper channels increase stress without proportionally increasing retention, and greater projection above the floor may impair condensation of the overlying amalgam.
#Cemented Pins
Cemented pins are placed into a channel slightly larger than the pin, with the pin retained by a thin film of luting cement. Because the channel is wider than the pin, no dentinal stress is created during placement — an advantage in teeth where dentinal integrity is already compromised. However, retention depends entirely on the cement film and the bond between cement, pin, and dentine walls, making cemented pins the least retentive of all pin types under normal clinical conditions.
Cemented pins have largely fallen out of favour for intraoral use but retain a role in specific situations: very shallow remaining dentine thickness where a self-threading pin would risk perforation, and teeth with pre-existing dentinal cracks where additional stress must be avoided. Zinc phosphate cement provides adequate retention for cemented pins in amalgam buildups; resin luting agents can further increase retention in bonded applications.
#Friction-Lock Pins
Friction-lock pins are pressed into a slightly undersized channel by direct axial pressure, relying on elastic deformation of the dentine walls to grip the pin. While they avoid the rotational stress of threading and can be placed quickly, they substitute torsional stress with compressive hoop stress in the dentine — an equally damaging mechanism if the channel is too tight or the dentine is thin. Friction-lock pins are seldom recommended in contemporary texts and are primarily of historical interest, having been largely superseded by self-threading pins due to inferior and less predictable retention.
#Pin Materials
| Material | Properties | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stainless steel | High tensile strength; corrosion-resistant in oral environment | Widely available; low cost; proven long-term performance | Galvanic potential with amalgam; some corrosion over decades |
| Titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) | Excellent biocompatibility; no galvanic potential with amalgam | No corrosion; tooth-coloured when combined with composite | Higher cost; slightly lower strength than stainless steel |
| Gold alloy | Good biocompatibility; high corrosion resistance | Compatible with gold restorations; no galvanic reaction with gold | Very high cost; reduced use in modern practice |
In contemporary practice, titanium alloy pins are increasingly preferred over stainless steel, particularly where aesthetic restorations are planned or where any galvanic interaction must be minimised. Titanium pins are also more compatible with CBCT and MRI imaging, producing less artefact than stainless steel.
#Placement Technique
Step 1 — Select the Correct Pin Size and Matching Drill
Choose the pin size appropriate for the available dentine bulk. Minim (gold) is the default for most cases. Select the matching TMS twist drill (same colour-coded system). Inspect the drill before use — a bent or dulled TMS drill will wander off axis and is a leading cause of perforation.
Step 2 — Determine Channel Location
Channels are placed in the dentine of the axial walls, not in the pulpal floor. The ideal location is in the angle between the axial wall and the pulpal floor, known as the axiogingival line angle or equivalent wall junction — areas that provide adequate dentine depth and distance from both the pulp and the external root surface.
For multi-rooted posterior teeth, the safest zones differ by root trunk anatomy. A general guide to safe placement by tooth region is given in the safety zones section below. No more than one pin per missing or weakened cusp is the standard recommendation; multiple pins in close proximity do not multiply retention proportionally but do multiply dentinal stress and cracking risk.
Step 3–6: Drilling, Irrigation, and Insertion
- Mark the channel site with a small round bur indent to prevent the drill from skating. Use a contra-angle handpiece at low speed (800–1,200 RPM) with the TMS twist drill.
- Drill the channel to a depth of exactly 2 mm in dentine. Use the depth stop on the TMS drill to prevent over-penetration. Drill with a gentle, axial (not lateral) pressure. Use intermittent pressure and retract the drill slightly to clear dentinal chips and prevent binding.
- Irrigate the channel with water or saline and gently dry. Do not blow air directly into a deep channel (risk of aerosol contamination of the pulpal floor and dentinal tubules).
- Insert the pin using the TMS hand driver or contra-angle latch driver at slow speed. For hand placement, tighten until the driver stalls — do not force past this point. The pin is fully seated when 2 mm projects above the cavity floor.
- Bend if needed: If the pin protrudes in a direction that will interfere with matrix band placement or condensation, gently bend it 15–30° using a pin-bending tool. Bending weakens the pin at the bend point; never bend more than 45° and never re-straighten a bent pin.
- Verify radiographically after all pins are placed, before condensing the restoration, to confirm no perforation of the pulp chamber or external surface has occurred.
#Safety Zones
The dentinal safety zone is the area of the tooth wall in which a pin channel can be placed without risking perforation of the pulp chamber or the external tooth surface. The zone is bounded by two minimum distances:
- ≥ 0.5 mm from the pulp (pulpal perforation risk)
- ≥ 1.0 mm from the external tooth surface (external root perforation or furcation risk)
Given that most posterior dentine walls are 3–5 mm thick at the gingival level and taper coronally, the available safety zone is typically 1.5–3 mm of dentine in the best locations and can be extremely narrow or absent in others. The clinician must have a three-dimensional mental model of each tooth’s root trunk anatomy before committing to pin placement.
| Tooth / Region | Safest Pin Locations | Danger Zones to Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Maxillary molar | Mesiobuccal and distobuccal angles of axial walls; distolingual angle | Furcation areas (buccal floor); proximal surfaces near CEJ |
| Mandibular molar | Buccal and lingual axial walls mid-height | Furcation (mesial floor — furcation is close); distal root concavity |
| Maxillary premolar | Buccal axial wall, mid-height | Palatal root (thin); mesial and distal — proximal surfaces thin |
| Mandibular premolar | Buccal axial wall | Lingual surface (thin enamel/dentine); distal — root taper |
| Anterior teeth | Incisal third of axial walls only | Cervical third — pulp is wide; labial/lingual surfaces — dentine is thin |
#Complications
| Complication | Cause | Prevention / Management |
|---|---|---|
| Dentinal crazing | Threading stress radiates microcracks from the channel into surrounding dentine; present in up to 80% of self-threading pin placements in laboratory studies | Use Minim pins; limit pin number; avoid pins near thin dentine; accept crazing as clinically manageable in most cases |
| Pulpal perforation | Drill placed too close to pulp; incorrect drill angulation | Preoperative radiographic measurement; drill perpendicular to external surface; use depth stops |
| External root perforation | Drill placed too close to external surface; root anatomy not accounted for | Thorough anatomical knowledge; stay within safety zone; verify radiographically |
| Pin fracture on insertion | Over-torquing; incorrect drill used (undersized); bent drill | Colour-match drill and pin; use hand driver with torque-limiting clutch; inspect drills before use |
| Pin loosening | Cemented pins — cement dissolution; insufficient channel depth; contamination | Use self-threading for adequate retention; ensure 2 mm channel depth in dentine; isolate with rubber dam |
| Pulpal inflammation/necrosis | Thermal or mechanical trauma; proximity to pulp; infected dentinal chips forced into tubules | Irrigate channel; avoid heat; maintain minimum 0.5 mm from pulp; apply calcium hydroxide liner if within 1 mm of pulp |
| Impaired condensation | Pins oriented in the path of condensation instrument; too many pins in a small area | Limit to 1 pin per cusp; bend pins if necessary to clear condensation path |
#Pins vs. Modern Alternatives
Pin retention was the standard approach to managing severely broken-down teeth from the 1960s through the 1990s. The widespread adoption of adhesive dentistry — particularly dentine-bonded composite and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) buildups — has provided an alternative that avoids many of pin retention’s inherent problems.
| Feature | Retention Pins | Adhesive Composite Buildup |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanism | Mechanical interlocking with dentine | Micromechanical and chemical bonding via adhesive system |
| Dentinal stress | High (threading/compressive crazing) | Minimal — no drilling required beyond preparation |
| Technique sensitivity | Moderate — placement and depth control critical | High — adhesive protocol must be followed precisely |
| Restoration type | Amalgam only (pins contraindicated under composite) | Composite, RMGI, amalgam (when bonded) |
| Pulpal risk | Moderate — drilling near pulp | Low — no additional drilling; sealed dentinal tubules |
| Time required | Moderate — drilling, placement, verification | Moderate — etching, bonding, layering |
| Moisture sensitivity | Low — amalgam tolerates some moisture | High — adhesive fails in contaminated field |
| Current preference | Declining — reserved for specific amalgam buildups | Preferred for most large direct restorations |
The contemporary consensus is that pins should be used only when adhesive technique is not feasible — typically when moisture control cannot be achieved to the standard required for bonding, or when a very large amalgam buildup is planned under an existing crown or bridge retainer where the amalgam will be non-loadbearing and the pin system provides a simple, moisture-tolerant mechanical option.
Key Takeaways
- Retention pins supplement — not replace — cavity design, and provide retention (dislodgement resistance), not resistance form (occlusal load resistance).
- The TMS self-threading system is the clinical standard; pins are colour-coded (Regular/silver, Minim/gold, Minikin/red) to match their twist drills.
- Standard TMS placement: 2 mm channel depth in dentine, 2 mm pin projection above the cavity floor.
- The dentinal safety zone requires ≥ 0.5 mm from the pulp and ≥ 1 mm from the external surface; thorough anatomical knowledge and radiographic confirmation are mandatory.
- Self-threading pins induce dentinal crazing (microcracks) in the majority of cases; use the smallest effective pin size (Minim as default) and one pin per missing cusp.
- Complications include perforation (pulpal or external), pin fracture, pulpal necrosis, and impaired condensation — all of which can be minimised with careful technique.
- In most contemporary clinical scenarios, adhesive composite or RMGI buildups have replaced pins, as they avoid dentinal stress, seal tubules, and are compatible with all direct restorative materials.
#Related Articles
#References
- Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5th ed. Mosby; 2006. Chapter 17: Additional Conservation Procedures.
- Summit JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 3rd ed. Quintessence; 2006. Chapter 15: Pins, Slots, Steps and Boxes.
- Baum L, Phillips RW, Lund MR. Textbook of Operative Dentistry. 3rd ed. W.B. Saunders; 1995.
- Dilts WE, Welk DA, Stovall J. Retentive properties of pin materials in pin-retained silver amalgam restorations. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1968;77(6):1085–1089.
- Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Collard EW, Pollack MH. Analysis of stress distribution by endodontic posts. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1972;33(6):952–960.
- Christensen GJ. To pin or not to pin amalgam. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1996;127(7):1050–1052.
- Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. USPHS Publication No. 790-244. San Francisco: USPHS; 1971.
