CLASSIFICATION OF REMOVABLE

PARTIAL DENTURES

Presented by:Dr.Kanika Manral

CONTENTS• Introduction• Need for Classification• Requirements of a Classification• Classification based on Major

Connector material• Various Topographic Classification

Systems• Conclusion• References

INTRODUCTION

Why classify??

NEED FOR CLASSIFICATION• To formulate a well designed treatment

plan.

• To anticipate the difficulties common to occur for that particular design.

• To communicate in a more simplified manner in relation to a particular case.

• To design the denture according to the occlusal load expected for a particular class.

REQUIREMENTS OF A CLASSIFICATION

• Allow visualization of type of partially edentulous arches that is being considered.

• Allow differentiation between tooth supported and tooth-tissue supported partial dentures.

• Serve as a guide to the type of design to be used.

• Be universally accepted.

Classification based on Major Connector material

• Plastic major connector-INTERIM Partial Denture-– constructed as part of the

preparation of the mouth for definitive RPD, FPD or implant procedure.

– referred to as TREATMENT Partial Denture in case of abused tissue rehabilitation

• Cast metal alloy major connector-DEFINITIVE Partial Denture-– constructed after extensive

diagnosis, treatment planning, and thorough preparation of the teeth and tissues for the prosthesis.

– The length of service of definitive RPDs is intended to be many years (customarily 5-10 years)

Topographic CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

• Cummer’s(1920)• Kennedy’s(1925)• Kennedy & Applegate’s(1960)• Bailyn’s(1928)• Neurohr’s(1939)• Mauk’s(1942)• Wild’s(1949)• Godfrey’s(1951)• Beckett’s(1953)• Friedman’s (1953)• Craddock’s(1954)• Austin & Lidge’s(1957)

• Watt’s et al(1957) • Skinner’s(1957)• Avant’s(1960)• Swenson ’s(1963)• Fiset’s(1973)• Costa’s (1974)• Osborne & Lammie’s(1974)• Fábián & Fejérdy’s(1979)• ACPclassification(1999)• ICK classification(2008)• Naeem and Bashir ‘s(2014)

Cummer’s Classification

• Proposed by Cummer in 1920.• Cummer stated “ for working

purposes all the cases may be made to fall into 4 simple classes, which have as their basis the choice of number and position of the direct retainer”.

• CLASS I-DIAGONAL: 2 diagonally opposite teeth are chosen as abutment teeth for the attachment of direct retainer.

• CLASS II-DIAMETRIC: 2 diametrically opposite teeth are chosen as abutment teeth for the attachment of the direct retainers

• CLASS III –UNILATERAL: one or more teeth on the same side chosen as abutment teeth for the attachment of the direct retainers

• CLASS IV-MULTILATERAL: three or more teeth are chosen as abutment teeth for the attach-ment of the direct retainers, disposed in a triangular or quadrilateral relationship

MERITS:• Helps in design• Allows analysis of support available

DEMERITS:• Edentulous area has no

representation• No. or class of teeth not elaborated

Kennedy’s Classification• Most widely used method of

classification• Proposed in 1925 by Dr. Edward

Kennedy• It is based on the relationship of

the edentulous spaces to the abutment teeth in an antero-posterior reference.

CLASS I-Bilateral edentulous areas located posterior to the remaining natural teeth.

CLASS II-Unilateral edentulous area located posterior to the remaining natural teeth.

CLASS III-Unilateral edentulous area with natural teeth both anterior and posterior to it.

CLASS IV-Single bilateral edentulous area located anterior to the remaining natural teeth,i.e. crossing the midline.

Applegate’s Modifications• It is a subdivision of Kennedy’s

Class-III system by Dr. O.C Applegate in 1960.

• It takes into consideration the capability of the abutment teeth adjoining the edentulous space to be or not to be able to provide support sufficiently to the partial denture structure.

• CLASS V-Kennedy’s Class III edentulous space in which the anterior abutment (eg.lateral incisor) is not suitable for the support.

• CLASS VI-Kennedy’s Class III edentulous space in which teeth adjacent to the edentulous space are capable of total support to the prosthesis.

Applegate’s Rules:Applegate also provided the following 8 rules to govern the application of the Kennedy system:

Rule 1:Classification should follow rather than precede extractions that might alter the original classification.

Rule 2:If the third molar is missing and not to be replaced it is not considered in the classification.

Rule 3:If the third molar is present and is to be used as an abutment, it is considered in the classification.

Rule 4:If the second molar is missing and is not to be replaced, it is not considered in the classification.

Rule 5: The most posterior edentulous area or areas always determine the classification.

Rule 6:Edentulous areas other than those determining the classification are referred to as modification spaces and are designated by their number.

Rule 7:The extent of the modification is not considered, only the number of additional edentulous areas are noted.

Rule 8:There can be no modification areas in class IV arches. Because any edentulous area lying posterior to the single bilateral area shall determine the classification.

MERITS:• Permits immediate visualization of the partially

edentulous arches• Permits logical approach to design• Differentiates between bounded & free end

saddles

DEMERITS:• Edentulous areas have no individual

representation• No. of teeth missing in modification spaces &

condition of abutment teeth not elaborated upon

Bailyn’s Classification• Proposed in 1928 by Dr. Charlin M.

Bailyn• A system of classification based on

whether the prosthesis is tooth borne, tissue borne, or a combination of the two.

• Firstly, he classified all edentulous spans into:A : Saddle areas anterior to the first

bicuspids. P : Saddle areas posterior to the cuspids.

• Then, A and P are further subdivided into:CLASS-I: The abutment teeth present at arch

extremity of a bounded saddle area representing a span of not more than three teeth.

CLASS-II: Free end saddle. CLASS-III: Bounded saddle where more than

three teeth missing.

MERITS:• First to emphasize the importance of

support to partial denture by the remaining tissue

DEMERITS:• Does not give immediate visualization of

partially edentulous arch. • No representation of individual teeth

involved

Neurohr’s Classification• Proposed in 1939 by Dr. Ferdinand

Neurohr, this classification is also based on the support derived.

• It is not commonly used due to its complexity.

• Broadly classified partially edentulous arches into:

1. CLASS I:TOOTH BEARING Teeth present posterior to all spans, <4 teeth missing per span• Variation1-MISSING POSTERIORS

PREDOMINATEa)Posteriors missing, all anteriors in placeb)Posteriors missing, some anteriors missing

• Variation2- MISSING ANTERIORS PREDOMINATE

a)Anteriors missing, all posteriors in placeb)Anteriors missing, some posteriors

missing

2. CLASS II:TOOTH & TISSUE BEARINGMust present one or both of the following criteria:• no teeth posterior to one or more

spans • more than 4 teeth in one or more

spans(may include a canine)

DIVISION 1: When there are no teeth posterior to 1 or more span.• Variation1-MISSING POSTERIORS

PREDOMINATEa) Posteriors missing, all anteriors in placeb) Posteriors missing, some anteriors missing

• Variation2-MISSING ANTERIORS PREDOMINATEa) Not applicableb) Anteriors missing, some

posteriors missing

• DIVISION 2: When there are teeth present posterior to 1 or more span, but no. of missing teeth in any of the spans>4(may include cuspid).• Variation1-MISSING

POSTERIORS PREDOMINATEa)Posteriors missing, all anteriors in placeb)Posteriors missing, some anteriors

missing

• Variation2-MISSING ANTERIORS PREDOMINATE

a)Anteriors missing, all posteriors in placeb)Anteriors missing, some posteriors missing

3. CLASS III:TISSUE BEARINGCompletely edentulousarch

MERITS:• Classifies on the basis of length of span,

hence provides an idea about support required.

• Defines the dominant edentulous area of concern

DEMERITS:• Complexity• Does not provide the location of edentulous

span- side, quadrant, etc. • No representation of individual teeth involved

.

Mauk’s Classification• Proposed in 1941 by Dr. Edwin. H.

Mauk• Based on studies conducted on over

100 patient models• Classification based on:

The number, position and length of the spaces

The number of position of the remaining teeth

• CLASS I: Bilateral posterior edentulous spans with no teeth present posterior to either.

• CLASS II: Bilateral posterior edentulous space with tooth/teeth present posterior to one.

• CLASS III: Bilateral posterior edentulous space with tooth/teeth present posterior to both.

• CLASS IV: Unilateral posterior edentulous span with/without teeth present posterior to it.

• CLASS V: Anterior edentulous span with posterior segment unbroken on either side.

• CLASS VI: Irregular edentulous spans around the arch. Missing teeth are single or in groups.

MERITS:• Differentiates between unilateral vs

bilateral, tooth supported vs tooth+tissue supported edentulous spans.

DEMERITS:• No clear representation with respect to

multiple edentulous spans(CLASS-VI??)• No. of teeth missing per span not described • No representation of individual teeth

involved

Godfrey’s Classification• Proposed in 1951 by Dr.R.J.

Godfrey as was being implemented by him at the time at the University of Toronto.

• Based on location and extent of edentulous space

• CLASS A-Tooth borne edentulous span in the anterior region of the jaw

• CLASS B-Tooth & tissue borne edentulous span in the anterior region of the jaw

• CLASS C-Tooth borne edentulous span in the posterior region of the jaw

• CLASS D-Tooth and tissue born edentulous span in the posterior region of the jaw

MERITS:• Differentiates between anterior and posterior,

tooth and tissue supported edentulous spans

DEMERITS:• No description provided with regard to

unilateral /bilateral edentulous situation• Quadrant wise location not provided• No representation of no. or type of teeth

missing in the edentulous span

Beckett’s Classification• Proposed in 1953 by Dr.Leonard

S.Beckett• Based on load distribution of

individual components on saddles of the partial denture

• Inspired by Bailyn’s classification,i.e, kind of support available for the saddle.

Every individual saddle of a partially edentulous situation is classified into:• CLASS-I: Saddle is entirely tooth supported;

abutment teeth qualified to support the denture.

• CLASS-II: Saddle is entirely mucosa supported. Further subdivided into: a) All free-end saddlesb) Those bounded saddles where length of saddle

and/ or condition of abutment teeth contraindicate tooth borne support.

• CLASS-III:Saddle is bounded but has inadequate abutments to support denture with probable inadequate mucosa support.

MERITS:• Kind of support, quality of support

specified for every individual edentulous span.

DEMERITS:• Anteroposterior location of saddle not

specified.• Quadrant wise location not provided.• No representation of exact no. or type of

teeth missing in the edentulous spans

Freidman’s Classification• Proposed in 1953 by Dr.Joel

Freidman• Based on location of edentulous

space• Classified as:

A:Anterior edentulous spaceB:Bounded posterior edentulous spaceC:Posterior free ended or cantilever

edentulous space

MERITS:• Simplicity

DEMERITS:• Location of saddle not specified from

quadrant/unilateral-bilateral point of view.

• No representation of exact no. or type of teeth missing in the edentulous spans

Craddock’s Classification

• Proposed in 1954 by Dr.William H. Craddock

• Classified partially edentulous arches based on support available

• CLASS-I: Saddle supported at both ends by substantial abutment teeth.

• CLASS-II: Vertical biting forces applied to denture insisted entirely by soft tissue.

• CLASS-III:Tooth support at only one end of the saddle.

MERITS:• Classifies the kind of support

available on either side of a saddle

DEMERITS:• No light is shed upon the

anteroposterior location, quadrant or jaw specific to the edentulous span

• No representation of exact no. or type of teeth missing in the edentulous spans

Austin & Lidge’s Classification• Proposed in 1957 by Dr.Karl P. Austin

Dr.Eduard F. Lidge

• Based on the position of missing teeth in a partially edentulous arch

• Terminology:A=anterior teeth missing, P=posterior teeth missing, Bi=bilaterally symmetrical edentulous space, 1=on one side of the arch, 2=on both sides of the arch

• CLASS A1- Anterior teeth missing on one side of the arch

• CLASS A2-Anterior teeth missing on both sides of the arch

• CLASS ABi-Bilaterally symmetrically missing anterior teeth

• CLASS P1- Posterior teeth missing on one side of the arch(bounded/free end)

• CLASS P2-Posterior teeth missing on both sides of the arch (bounded/free end)

• CLASS PBi-Bilaterally symmetrically missing posterior teeth(bounded/ free end)

• CLASS AP1-Anterior and posterior teeth missing on one side of the arch

• CLASS AP2-Anterior ans posterior teeth missing on both sides of the arch

• CLASS APBi-Bilaterally symmetrically missing anterior and posterior teeth

MERITS:• First to classify in a unilateral vs bilateral

perspective with respect to anteroposterior edentulous spans.

• Provision for visualisation of the general edentulous span location.

DEMERITS:• Quadrant not defined• No representation of exact no. or type of

teeth missing in the edentulous spans

Watt’s Classification• Proposed in 1957 by Watt et al.• Based on the type of support derived

by the denture.• Classified into:

I. Entirely tooth supported denturesII. Entirely tissue supported denturesIII. Partially tooth and partially tissue

supported dentures

Skinner’s Classification• Proposed in 1957 by Dr. C.N. Skinner• Based on the relationship of the

abutment teeth to the denture base spanning the edentulous area.

• Stated that “the value of a partial denture is directly related to quantity and the degree of support, which it receives, from the abutment teeth and residual ridge”

CLASS I: Abutment teeth located both anterior and posterior to denture bases, spaces may be unilateral or bilateral.

CLASS II: Abutment teeth located posterior to the denture base.

CLASS III:Abutment teeth located anterior to the denture base, spaces may be unilateral or bilateral

CLASS IV: Denture bases located both anterior and posterior to abutment teeth, may be unilateral or bilateral.

CLASS V: Abutment teeth are unilateral in relation to denture base.

MERITS:• Defines the relation of the abutment

teeth to the edentulous space in an anteroposterior and saggital plane, providing an idea about the support available.

DEMERITS:• Quadrant not defined• No representation of exact no. or type of

teeth missing in the edentulous spans

Wild’s Classification• Proposed in 1949 by Wild et al.• Based on change in the arch pattern

due to location of edentulous span • Classified into:

1) Interruption of arch(bounded)2) Shortening of arch3) Combination of 1 & 2

Avant’s Classification• Proposed in 1960 by Dr. W.E.Avant.• Aimed at a system of universal

acceptance.• Based on division of the arch into one anterior and two posterior segments for classification.

• CLASS I:This replaces one or more posterior teeth on one side of the arch, mesial to the most distal abutment tooth.

• CLASS I-F: This replaces one or more posterior teeth on one side of the arch, terminating in a free end.

• CLASS II: This replaces one or more posterior teeth on both sides of the arch, mesial to the most distal abutment tooth on both sides

• CLASS II-F: This replaces one or more posterior teeth on both sides of the arch, terminating in free ends on both sides

• CLASS III: This replaces one or more anterior teeth, may be unilateral or bilateral, symmetrical or asymmetrical, single or multiple

Rules for classifying:• Edentulous situation to be assigned to the

class that covers best the most important segment(s) being restored.

• Any remaining spaces to be restored are indicated by minor notations such as “a” for remaining anterior space, “p” for remaining posterior space.

MERITS:• Provides a significant idea of the

primary edentulous area of concern.• Combines the abutment location

aspect with support available.

DEMERITS:• Memory dependant;complexity.• No representation of exact no. or type

of teeth missing in the edentulous spans.

Swenson’s Classification• Proposed in 1963 by Swenson et al.• Based on a slight modification in

Kennedy’s system.• Based on location of edentulous

space in relation to the abutment teeth

• Professed by Terkla & Laney

• CLASS I: Arch with one free end denture base

• CLASS II: Arch with two free end denture bases

• CLASS III: Arch with edentulous space posteriorly on one or both the sides, but with teeth present anteriorly or posteriorly to each space.

• CLASS IV: Edentulous space located anterior to the remaining natural teeth.

• SUBDIVISIONS: Additional areas other than the classification are alloted a subdivision “A” for additional anterior edentulous space and “P” for additional posterior edentulous space.

MERITS:• Classifies on the basis of support

available and allows for anteroposterior design to be visualised

DEMERITS:• Criteria for dominant and subdivided

edentulous space not described.• No representation of exact no. or type of

teeth missing in the edentulous spans.

Fiset’s Classification• Proposed in 1973 by Dr.Jacques

Fiset.

• Followed Kennedy’s & Applegate’s system and added four more classes to it, the final version popularly referred to as the Kennedy-Applegate-Fiset classification.

• CLASS VII: A partially edentulous situation in which all remaining natural teeth are located on one side of the arch, or of the median line

• CLASS VIII: A partially edentulous situation in which all remaining natural teeth are located in one anterior corner of the arch

• CLASS IX: A partially edentulous situation in which functional and cosmetic requirements or the magnitude of the interocclusal distance require the use of a telescoped prosthesis.

• CLASS X: A partially edentulous situation in which the remaining teeth are incapable of providing any support. If the teeth are kept to maintain alveolus integrity, the arch must be restored with an OVERDENTURE which is a complete denture supported primarily by the denture foundation area.

MERITS:• Adds to Kennedy’s & Applegate’s system with

regard to large partially edentulous situations such as those resulting from maxillofacial trauma, congenital defects, generalised periodontal compromise etc.

DEMERITS:• Edentulous areas have no individual

representation.• Concept of modification spaces not involved.• Individualised representation of teeth

missing/present not available.

Costa’s Classification• Proposed in 1974 by Dr.Charles E.

Costa• Based on description of anterior,

lateral and terminal edentulous spaces

• Classifies into:1)Anterior edentulous space2)Lateral edentulous space3)Terminal edentulous space

Osborne & Lammie’s Classification

• Proposed in 1974 by Osborne & Lammie

• Based on type of support derived by the partial denture

• Classified as:– CLASS I: MUCOSA- BORNE denture– CLASS II: TOOTH- BORNE denture– CLASS III: combination of MUCOSA –BORNE & TOOTH-

BORNE denture

Fábián & Fejérdy’s Classification

• Proposed in 1979 by Fábián & Fejérdy• Based on:

Position of remaining teeth in the arch No. of occlusal contacts Torquing* movement on constructed denture

• Enhances treatment p[anning and denture design procedures

Torque-/tɔːk/-rotatory force resulting from the vertical component of the occlusal load acting on a prosthesis; GPT-8

• CLASS 1: Completely tooth supported edentulous

spans Torquing movement on occlusal/incisal

surface of denture teeth CLASS 1A-

One or more fulcrum lines based on the no. of tooth bound edentulous spaces

No additional secondary abutments needed CLASS 1B-

Moderate torquing effects require utilisation of secondary abutments

Fulcrum line created outside of pontic space due to arch configuration/span

• CLASS 2A:– Tooth & tissue supported longer spans– Longer bounded saddles or short free

end saddles – Structural modifications to prevent

fulcral rotation indespensable

• CLASS 2B:– Primarily tissue and secondarily tooth

supported edentulous spans

• CLASS 3:– Denture exhibits movement in more

than one directions about more than one axis

– Large amount of tissue support derived– Extended edentulous areas with lesser

teeth remaining than missing and located diagonally

–Mostly telescopic in design– Indirect retention impossible plan hence

complete coverage desired

MERITS:• First and only classification to categorize based on

the kind of forces acting on the denture as a consequence of the no. and location of missing teeth.

• Contributes functionally to treatment p[anning and denture design procedures

DEMERITS:• Edentulous areas have no individual representation

wrt location/tooth type/no. of teeth/etc.• Vagueness-Applicable profitably only following

visualization of the arch

ACP Classification• Proposed by the American College of

Prosthodontists(ACP) in 1999(published in 2002)

• Based on the criterias: Location and extent of the edentulous space Status of the abutment teeth Occlusal plane State of the edentulous ridge

• Each criteria subdivided into:– CLASS 1 – ideal or minimally modified situation– CLASS 2 – medium alteration– CLASS 3 – advanced alteration– CLASS 4 – severe alteration

Rules to be Followed to apply the ACP Classification: The most high-graded criteria establishes the

class of the case Extra aesthetic requirements increase the

complexity of the class (for class 1 & 2 for every criteria)

If temporo-mandibular disorder is present this also increases the complexity of the class (for class 1 & 2 for every criteria).

If the maxillary arch is completely edentulous and the mandibular one partially edentulous than each one is considered in its own classification system.

MERITS:• Provides a clear clinical description of the

quality of support(tooth/tissue), condition of the edentulous foundation, state of occlusion, etc.

• Demarcates between shorter and longer edentulous spans hence classifying the kind of support required.

DEMERITS:• Edentulous areas have no individual

representation wrt location/tooth type/no. of teeth/etc.

ICK(Implant Corrected Kennedy’s) Classification• Proposed in 2008 by Al-Johany S &

Andres C.

• Based on Kennedy’s classification system with corrections wrt implant sites.

• Incorporates the number and positions of implants placed or to be placed in the edentulous areas being classified

Classification Guidelines:• No edentulous space will be included in the

classification if it is to be restored with an implant supported fixed prosthesis

• To avoid confusion, maxillary arch is drawn as half a circle facing up and mandibular arch as half a circle facing down

• The drawing shall appear as if looking directly at the patient, hence right and left quadrants are reversed

• The abbreviation “max” for maxillary and “man” for mandibular can precede the classification

•Roman numerals will be used for the classification, and Arabic numerals will be used for the number of modification spaces and implants.• The tooth number using the Federation Dentaire Interrnationale(FDI) system is used to give the number and exact position of the implant in the arch. •The classification of any situation will be according to the following order: main classification first, then the number of modification spaces, followed by the number of implants in parentheses according to their position in the arch preceded by the number sign (#).

• Example:– ICK I mod 2(#4,32,38,43,48)

• Classified into:– ICK I:for Kennedy class I situations– ICK II:for Kennedy class II situations– ICK III:for Kennedy class III situations and – ICK IV:for Kennedy class IV situations

MERITS:• Utilises the clarity of Kennedy’s system

along with a visualisation of implant sites.• Allows for better inter-component

treatment planning to be carried out.

DEMERITS:• Edentulous areas have no individual

representation wrt location/tooth type/no. of teeth/etc.

Naeem and Bashir’s Classification

• Proposed in 2014 by Naeem A & Basheer T• Based on location of missing teeth• Notations used– Maxillary(Mx),

Mandibular(Md), Left(L), Right(R), Numbering 1,2,3… – for Incisors, canine etc.

• Class denoted by roman numerals, type by arabic.

• Tooth missing other than the classification denoted thereafter.

• CLASS I Type 1-Both 2nd molar’s

missing (M2) Type 2-All molar’s

missing (M2, M1) Type 3-All molar’s, 2nd

pre-molar missing (M2, M1, PM2)

Type 4-All posterior teeth missing (M2, M1, PM2, PM1)

Type 5-All posterior teeth + any anterior tooth missing (M2, M1, PM2, PM1, Ant.)

• CLASS II Type 1-Unilateral 2nd molar

missing (M2) Type 2-Unilateral both

molar’s missing (M2, M1) Type 3-Unilateral both

molar’s, 2nd pre-molar missing (M2, M1, PM2)

Type 4-Unilateral all posterior teeth missing (M2, M1, PM2, PM1)

Type 5-Unilateral all posterior teeth missing +any anterior tooth (M2, M1, PM2, PM1, Ant.)

• CLASS III Type 1-Unilateral 2nd molar

missing (M2) Type 2-Unilateral 2nd molar,

1st molar missing (M2,M1) Type 3-Unilateral 2nd molar,

1st molar, 2nd premolar missing (M2, M1, PM2)

Type 4-Unilateral 2nd molar, 1st molar, both premolars missing (M2, M1, PM2, PM1)

Type 5- Unilateral 2nd molar, 1st molar, both premolars missing + any anterior tooth (M2, M1, PM2, PM1, Ant.)

• CLASS IV Type 1-Bilateral central

incisor missing (CI) Type 2-Bilateral incisor

missing (I) Type 3-Bilateral anterior

missing (I,C) Type 4-Bilateral anterior,

1st premolar missing (I, C,P) Type 5-Bilateral anterior,

both premolars missing(I, C, P)

Type 6-Bilateral anterior, both premolar, 1st molar missing (I, C, P, M1)

EXAMPLES:Mx, Class-I, Type- 1, L5 Mx, Class-II, Type-1R, L5

Mx, Class-III, Type-2R, L5 Mx, Class-III L1,1

MERITS:• Only classification to specify the tooth type,

quadrant, no. of teeth involved in the partially edentulous state.

• Gives invidualised reference to every variety of support vs space situation

DEMERITS:• Complexity requires memory based analysis.• No information retrieved regarding periodontal

status of abutments/general soft tissue structure

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

REFERENCESo Miller E.L. Systems for classifying partially dentulous arches. J

Prosthet Dent 1970;24(1):25-40.

o Costa E. A simplified system for identifying partially edentulous dental arches. J Prosthet Dent 1974;32(6):639-645.

o Stewart KL, Rudd KD, Kuebker WA. Clinical removable partial prosthodontics. 2nd edition.

o Carr AB, McGivney GP, Brown DT. McCracken’s removable partial prosthodontics. 11th edition.

o Brudvik JS. Advanced removable partial dentures. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; Illinois. 1999

• McCraken Textbook of removable partial prosthodontics.eleventh edition.mosby.2005

• Stewart’s clinical.Textbook of removable partial prosthodontics.fourth edition.quintessence publishing co inc 2008

• Sulieman SAJ, Carl A:ICK Classification System for Partially Edentulous Arches. Journal of Prosthodont 17 (2008) 502–507 c 2008 by The American College of Prosthodontists

• Misch CE, Judy KW: Classification of partially edentulous arches for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Implantology 1987;4:7-13

• Naeem A, Basheer T. A New Classification of Partially Edentulous Arches Jrnl Res Adv Dent 2014; 3:2s:194-198