## 2 Materials and Methods  
The geometry of the abutment tooth was chosen to resemble a mandibular first molar (Figure 1). The entire model was designed based on parameters reported in a previous study [4], which considered an axially symmetrical abutment to be sufficient for investigating the main effects on the subject structure (Figure 2). In addition, the root dentin, periodontal ligament, and bone tissue were designed according to the study by [PERSON] et al., 2021 [27]. The crown preparation presented 5.75 mm height [4] and axial walls (\(a\)) with 6\({}^{\circ}\) of divergence [4]. A uniformly thick (0.3 mm) layer of resinous cement between the prepared tooth and the PC was also included in the model. The primary crown (PC) presented 0.80 mm minimal thickness (\(t\)), while the secondary crown (SC) was designed with minimal thickness of 1.5 mm. In the present model, the tooth was supported on a bone cylinder. Then, the solids were exported in Standard for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP) format to the computer aided engineering (CAE) software (ANSYS 19.2, ANSYS Inc. Houston, TX, USA). In sequence, the mesh subdivision was generated through the convergence test until obtaining a finite number of nodes and elements for the models (Figure 3). The mesh density was defined after the contacts verification of coincident nodes between the juxtaposed solids as well as the mesh convergence test considering the linear trend of von-Mises stress peak by the number of elements. It is important to note that only one model was used in the present simulation, and the difference between the molar size and shape, as well as the size of the preparation, were assumed as a constant in the results. Therefore, the present model geometry was considered in the results analysis; however, differences in the axial walls angle, adhesive area, parafunction (bruxism), dilacetated roots, endodontic treatment, presence of biomaterials build-up, and  
Figure 1: Schematic illustration showing the full-denture and the telescopic primary crowns in molar and canine abutment teeth. Figure 2: Cross-section of the geometrical model with the designed dimensions. several other possible variables can be found in the molar structure, which were assumed as ideal since this was a homogeneous prepared tooth. For all materials simulated in the model, linear-elastic, isotropic material was considered based on 2 constants: Elastic modulus and Poisson ratio. Table 1 summarizes the simulated material properties. To accurately simulate the movement and loosening process of the system, knowledge about the coefficients of dynamic and static friction (\(\mu\) and \(\mu\)0, respectively) between PC and SC was required [4]. However, in this study, \(\mu=\mu\)0 was chosen due to the absence of information in the literature regarding the true values between the simulated materials [4]. Therefore, frictionless contact was assumed between the juxtaposed structures. The other layers and structures were considered perfectly bonded. A static structural evaluation was performed using a single-step analysis. Boundary conditions defined the fixation support at the bone base, and the load (600 N) was applied at the occlusal surface of the crown (\(Z\)-axis) (Figure 3). The load value was based on previous finite element studies that have evaluated the mechanical behavior of posterior tooth, assuming it as a normal value of chewing force [28; 29]. The base surface of the bone was restricted in the X, Y, and Z directions [4]. The results were required in von-Mises stress in both crowns and cement layer; and the Equivalent Strain in the bone and periodontal ligament (PDL). The stress and strain peaks were recorded from each structure based on the maximum probe tool for a quantitative comparison between the conditions.