Post on 21-Apr-2017
transcript
1
Major ConnectorsPresented by : Apurva Thampi
2
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Recent advances Conclusion References
3
IntroductionName of components – descriptive of
function
Components
Major connectors
Minor connector
Rests
Direct retainer
Indirect retainer
Denture base
4
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Recent advances Conclusion References
5
Major connectorsA major connector joins the components of the removable partial denture from one side of the arch to the opposite side
6
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Recent advances Conclusion References
7
Role of major connectors
Be rigidProtect the associated soft tissueProvide means for obtaining indirect
retentionProvide a means of placement of denture
basePromote patient comfortSelf cleansing
8
Rigidity :
Permits broad distribution of forces
Protect soft tissue:
Maxillary connector – 6mm from marginal gingiva
Mandibular connector – 3mm from marginal gingiva
9
Provide means of indirect retention:
By use of indirect retainers, rotation around the fulcrum
line can be prevented
Promote patient comfort:
Edges should be contoured
10
Major connector is based on the principle of leverage
It will limit movement possibilities by acting as a counter-acting lever
CROSS-ARCH STABILITY
11
Major connector
s
maxillary
mandib
ular
12
Requirements of maxillary major connectors
Borders – 6mm from gingival marginsAnterior border should blend with the
palatal anatomyBorders should cross the margins at right
anglesPalatal strap – 8mm wideOpen central connectors – medial borders
should be located at the junction of horizontal and vertical surfaces
13
Thickness of the plate should be uniformBorders should be gently curvedIntaglio surface should not be highly
polished
14
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Recent advances Conclusion References
15
Types of Maxillary major connectors
• Palatal bar• Palatal strap• Antero-posterior palatal bar• Horse-shoe shaped• Antero-posterior palatal
strap• Complete palate
6 types of maxillary
major connector
s
16
Palatal bar
17
Narrow, half ovalThickest point at the centreGentle curved and should not form an
angle
Indications class III (short span)
application
18
*Palatal bar has few advantages and should be avoided
*Bulky – causes discomfort to the patient*Narrow antero-posterior width
Advantage/Disadvantage
19
Palatal strap
20
Most versatileBand of metal with a thin cross-sectional
dimensionA-P dimension should not be less than
8mm
21
Width should be increased with the length of the edentulous span
Indication Kennedy’s class II
22
*Increased resistance to bending and twisting forces*can be kept thin*little interference with normal tongue action*increased tissue coverage
*Excessive palatal coverage* Anterior border should be positioned posterior to rugae* Prone to papillary hyperplasia
Advantage/Disadvantage
23
Antero-posterior palatal bar
24
Palatal bar + palatal strap2 bars joined by a flat longitudinal
element
25
Advantage/Disadvantage
*Rigid*Minimises soft tissue coverage*Provides exceptional resistance to deformation
*Uncomfortable*Bulky*Derives little support from bony tissue*Contraindication – reduced periodontal support
26
Horse shoe connector
27
Consists of a thin band of metalLingual surface of remaining teeth to
palatal tissue – 6-8 mmShould be symmetrical – equal height
on both sides
28
Advantage/Disadvantage
*Strong connector*Derives some vertical support from tissues of hard palate*Designed to avoid bony prominences
Tendency to deformDoes not provide cross-arch stabilisationShould be considered only if more rigid connectors cannot be used
29
Horse shoe major connector has a tendency toFlex or deform. Hence it is not a good connector When cross arch stabilization in required.
30
Antero-posterior palatal strap
31
Maximum usageEach strap – 8mm width, thin cross-
sectionBorders – 6mm from gingival marginPosterior strap should not contact
soft palate
32
Advantage/Disadvantage
*Derives good support from hard tissues*L-beam effect – increases resistance to flexure
+Extensive length of borders may cause irritation to the tongue
33
Complete palate
34
Provides ultimate rigidity and supportMaximum tissue coverageMust be kept 6mm away from
gingival marginsMechanical seal – presence of bead
line along posterior border
35
ADVANTAGESAll posterior teeth to be replacedRemaining teeth are periodontally
compromisedProvides vertical supportPermits force distribution to the teeth as
well as the tissuesComfortable Coverage of multiple planes – L beam
effect
36
DISADVANTAGESAdverse soft tissue reaction may occur
– soft tissue hyperplasia – poor oral hygiene and prolonged periods of denture wearing
37
Indications
Case Type of major connector
Weak periodontal support Wide palatal strap or complete palate
Adequate periodontal support Palatal strap or A-P palatal strap
Long-span distal extension A-P palatal strap or complete palate
Anterior teeth to be replaced A-P palatal strap, complete palate or horseshoe major connector
Presence of torus A-P palatal strap, A-P palatal bar, horse shoe connector
38
Design of maxillary major connectors
: Outline primary stress
bearing areas
Outline non beari
ng areas
Outline of connector area
s
Selection of connector type
Unification
39
Requirements of mandibular major connectors
Rigid without being bulkyMust not impinge on the movable
floor of the mouthRelief required between the rigid
metal connector and underlying tissues
40
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Recent advances Conclusion References
41
Types of mandibular major connectors
•Lingual bar•Lingual plate•Double lingual bar•Labial bar
4 types of
mandibular major connect
ors
42
Lingual bar
43
Most frequently usedCross-section – half pear shapedBroadest portion near the floor of the
mouth8mm space between gingival margin
and floor of the mouthPresence of mandibular tori –
surgical removal
44
*Minimal contact with remaining teeth*Simple design*Decreased plaque accumulation*Increased soft tissue stimulation
*If care is not taken, frame work may not be rigid*Too thin or too flexible – concentration of potentially destructive forces on individual teeth
45
Lingual plate
46
Half pear shaped – this solid piece of metal extending from superior border to lingual surfaces of teeth
Lingual border as low as possible - avoid interferences with functional movements
Plate must completely close the interproximal surfaces
47
Superior border is knife-edged to avoid “ledging”
Open embrasures or widely spaced teeth – modification – “step back”
Metal should cross gingival margins at right angles
To ensure rigidity – inferior border should be made thicker
“Ledging” occurs when metal margins are thick or linear
and provides unnatural contours
“Step back” modification requires the superior border
of the plate to cover the cingulum of the individual
tooth
48
*Exceptional rigidity – des not interfere with functional movements*Stabilize periodontally weak teeth*May provide additional indirect retention*If mandibular tori cannot be removed, adequate relief should be provided
*Extensive coverage – decalcification of enamel*Irritation of tissues in patients with poor oral hygiene
49
Double lingual bar
50
Lingual bar + lingual plateUpper and lower borders are similar
to lingual plateNo continuous metal sheetUpper bar – half oval cross-section
(2-3 mm height and 1mm thickness)Two bars should be connected by
rigid minor connectors
51
Rests should be placed at each end of the bar – no further posterior than 1st premolar
52
*Effectively extends indirect retention in an anterior direction*Free flow of saliva – marginal gingiva stimulation
Tendency to trap debrisUncomfortable – multiple borders and thickness
53
Labial bar
54
Runs across mucosa on facial surface
Half pear shapedLonger than lingual barHeight and thickness must be greaterSuccessful treatment very limited
55
SWING LOCK MODIFICATIONLabial component does not serve as
major connectorHinge at one end and locking device on
the otherPermits RPD to reach inaccessible
undercuts
56
Considered when remaining major connectors cannot be used
*Patient acceptance is poor-uncomfortable*Bulk distorts the lower lip*Labial vestibule not deep enough to accommodate a rigid connector without encroaching on the gingival margins
57
Indications
Tooth supported RPD Lingual bar
Insufficient room between floor of mouth and gingival margins
Lingual plate
Anterior teeth with reduced periodontal support
Lingual plate
Anterior teeth with reduced periodontal support and large interproximal spaces
Double lingual bar
Replacement of all mandibular posteriors
Lingual plate
58
Design of mandibular major connectors
I – outline basal seat area on the diagnostic cast
II – outline inferior border of major connnector
III – outline superior border of Major connector
IV – unification
59
60
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Acrylic dentures Recent advances Conclusion References
61
Acrylic dentures
Most commonly usedIndicated when the life of the denture
is expected to be lessOr if relining may be necessaryWeaker and less rigid than the metal
alloys - more likely to flex or fracture during function.
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
62
INDICATIONSDuring the phase or rapid bone
resorption after tooth lossWhen remaining teeth have poor
prognosis, and an extraction and replacement is expected
Interim dentureIn growing individuals
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
63
Design for the replacement of one or two anterior teeth in youngpeople is the 'spoon' denture. It reduces gingival margin coverage to aminimum, but a potential hazard is the risk of inhalation or ingestion.
A more stable and therefore more widely applicable design is themodified spoon denture. Here one has the choice of relying on frictionalcontact between the connector and the palatal surfaces of some of theposterior teeth, or of adding wrought wire clasps.
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
64
Another acceptable design is the 'Every' denture which can be used for
restoring multiple bounded edentulous areas in the maxillary jaw.
Acrylic RPDs in the mandible often lack tooth-support makingtissue damage highly probable. Such RPDs should thereforebe avoided whenever possible.Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. Glantz,
and P. Hammond (BDJ)
65
Contents Introduction Major connectors Role of major connectors Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indicationsSteps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectorsReview of indicationsSteps in Designing
Acrylic dentures Recent advances Conclusion References
66
Recent advances
Recent work has shown that CAD/CAM/RP technologies can be successfully applied to the fabrication of RPD alloy frameworks
67
68
RPD framework using PEEK
69
To conclude….
70
Bibliography
McCracken’s removable partial prosthodontics – 12th edition
Stewarts removable partial prosthodontics – 4th edition
Partial dentures – John osborne and George Lammie – 4th edition
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
Use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a removable partial denture framework (R. J. Williams, BA, PhD,a Richard Bibb, BSc, PhD,b Dominic Eggbeer, BSc,c and John Collis, BDS) (JPD)
71
Thank you!!