4. No component of a removable partial denture
should be added arbitrarily or conventionally.
Each component should be added for a good
reason and to serve a definite purpose.”
- McCracken
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 4
5. MAJOR CONNECTOR
“The part of a removable partial denture that joins
the components on one side of the arch to those
on the opposite side.” – GPT-9
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 5
6. Each component of the prosthesis has a name that is most
often descriptive of its function.
A major connector, for example, does exactly what its
name implies.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 6
7. HISTORY
The 1st mention of partial denture restoration – Heister in
1711
A block of bone or ivory was carved to fit the mouth,
merely by measurement and constant fitting.
Girardot.R.L. History and development of partial denture design. Journal of American
dental association 1941; 28(9): 1399-1408
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 7
8. Pierre Fauchard, (father of modern
dentistry) , first described this technique
in 1728.
He describes the construction of a
partial restoration using labial and lingual connector.
Having made 2 blocks of ivory to occlude with a
complete upper denture, and realizing that they would not
function separately, he conceived the idea of a connector.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 8
9. Girardot.R.L. History and development of partial denture design. Journal of American
dental association 1941; 28(9): 1399-1408
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 9
10. Techniques were further developed in 1899 when Dr.
William G.A.
Bonwill described clasping abutments with individually
contoured gold circumferential clasps that were then
soldered to a main plate or major connector.
Kreyer R. Digitally designed RPD framework : embracing new technologies for higher
quality and better results .Inside Dental Technology 2012;3(3)
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 10
12. CHIEF FUNCTIONS
unification of major parts of the prosthesis
Distribution of applied force thr’out the arch to
selected teeth and tissues
Minimization of torque to the individual teeth
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 12
13. To Function Effectively And Minimize
Potentially Damaging Effects, All Major
Connectors Must
1. Be RIGID
2. Provide VERTICAL SUPPORT and protect the soft tissues
3. Provide a means for obtaining INDIRECT RETENTION where
indicated
4. Provide a means for placement of one or more denture bases
5. Promote patient comfort
Stewarts clinical removable partial prosthodontics, 3rd Edition,DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 13
14. I. RIGIDITY – 1st requirement of all major connectors
A properly designed rigid major connector helps in
broad distribution of the forces to the sub-adjacent
supporting area
Hence, occlusal loads may be transmitted to abutment teeth,
other teeth included in RPD design., associated soft tissues
and underlying bone
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 14
15. Flexible major connector – may cause severe damage to the
hard and soft tissues
Allows forces to be concentrated on teeth & segments of the
residual ridges
↓sed support for the
associated denture
bases
↓sed ridge heightTooth mobility
or tooth loss
Resorption of the
hard & soft tissues
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 15
16. II. It should not impinge on free gingival
margin and other soft tissues.
Marginal gingivae – highly vascular
Susceptible to injury from sustained pressure
Hence, care should be exercised during the
design and fabrication of RPD.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 16
20. III. Should never be considered an indirect retainer.
Although a major connector may play an auxiliary role
in resisting rotation of the prosthesis, it is the action of
the rests and rest seats that is responsible for indirect
retention.
A major connector that is not properly rested will
undergo rotation and may cause orthodontic movement of
the associated teeth.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 20
21. IV. The Proper Placement Of Denture Bases.
Generally, the type of major connector will be dictated by the
number and location of edentulous areas.
Certain major connectors are indicated for anterior tooth
replacement, while others are not.
Some major connectors may be selected for tooth-supported
removable partial dentures, but not for tooth-tissue– supported
applications.
In each instance, a major or connector must allow appropriate
placement of the associated denture base(s).
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 21
22. V. a major connector must promote patient comfort.
Consequently, the edges of a major connector should be
contoured to blend with the oral tissues.
Tori also should be avoided if possible
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 22
23. VI. It is good design policy to make the major connector
as symmetrical as possible.
In addition, the borders of a maxillary major connector
should cross the palatal midline at right angles
Tissues covering the maxillary midline are often thin
and susceptible to irritation.
By crossing the maxillary midline at right angles, the
length of the crossing may be minimized and the potential
for irritation reduced.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 23
25. SPECIAL STRUCTURAL
REQUIREMENTS
I. Mandibular major connectors are long and relatively narrow.
Therefore, special consideration must be given to the design of
such connectors.
Stewarts clinical removable partial prosthodontics, 3rd Edition,DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 25
26. Mandibular connectors must be rigid without being so
bulky that they compromise patient comfort.
Furthermore, mandibular major connectors must not
impinge upon the movable floor of the mouth, the
associated frena, or mandibular tori
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 26
27. 2. Unlike maxillary major connectors, for which relief is
infrequently required, mandibular major connectors may
require relief between a mandibular removable partial
denture and the underlying soft tissues.
The amount of relief is dependent upon several factors.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 27
28. For an entirely tooth-supported prosthesis, little or no
relief is needed because the denture does not tend to move
in function.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 28
29. For a distal extension removable partial denture,
however, a moderate amount of relief my be indicated
because this type of prosthesis tends to rotate during
function.
Relief prevents the margins of the major connector from
lacerating the sensitive lingual mucosa as a result of this
movement.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 29
30. 3. The slope of the anterior ridge also influences the
amount of relief needed .
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 30
31. 4. It is important to note that bead lines are not used in
conjunction with mandibular major connectors.
Contact with the friable mucosa of the mandibular arch
may cause irritation, ulceration, and patient discomfort.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 31
32. TYPES OF MANDIBULAR
MAJOR CONNECTORS
Lingual bar
Linguo plate
Double lingual bar (kennedy bar)
Labial bar
Sublingual bar
Cingulum bar
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 32
33. LINGUAL BAR
Lingual bar is the basic form of the mandibular
major connector.
Most frequently used
It requires minimum of 8 mm of lingual
vestibular space.
33DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
34. Indications:
All tooth-supported removable partial dentures unless
there is insufficient space between the marginal gingivae
and the floor of the mouth.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 34
35. STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Half pear shaped in cross section
With wider part towards the lingual sulcus (inferior border)
Thinner part towards the marginal gingival (superior border)
Should follow the lingual contours of alveolar process but not
contacting it (o.5 mm clearance), to allow movement under
function.
35DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
36. The upper border of the major connector should be
around 3-4 mm away form the marginal gingival.
The thickness of the lingual bar should be around 4-5
mm superior inferiorly.
36DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
38. ADVANTAGES
Simple design
minimal contact with the
remaining teeth and
soft tissues.
It does not contact the
teeth, so decalcification of
the tooth surface is
minimized.
DISADVANTAGES
Extreme care in the design
and construction of a lingual
bar.
Too thin/ too flexible –
permits the concentration of
destructive forces on
individual teeth and
segments of the mandibular
arch.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 38
39. LINGUO PLATE (LINGUAL PLATE, LINGUAL
STRAP, LINGUAL APRON, LINGUAL SHIELD)
most commonly used in case of periodontally compromised
remaining teeth.
39DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
40. INDICATIONS
1. High frenal attachment
2. The space available for a lingual bar is limited (vestibule<8 mm).
3. Presence of lingual tori.
4. Kennedy’s class I - when indirect retention is needed.
5. Stabilization of periodontally weakened teeth.
6. Future replacement of one or more incisor teeth.
40DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
43. STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Half pear at the lower border with plate like extension
up to the cingulum of the anterior teeth.
The upper border follows the natural curvature of supra-
cingulum surface, (scalloped shape) extends up to the
middle third of the tooth and enters the interproximal
surface up to contact point.
43DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
44. S
44
Superior border of a linguoplate should display a scalloped appearance
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
45. ADVANTAGES
The lingual plate provides exceptional rigidity, indirect
retention.
The lingual plate also provides stabilization of periodontally
weak teeth.
Prevents over eruption of anterior teeth.
In case of future loss of any anterior teeth the lingual plate
provides an opportunity to replace the missing teeth without
changing the framework.
45DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
46. DISADVANTAGES
By covering lingual gingival surfaces it prevents physiologic
stimulation of soft tissues inflammation.
Decalcification of teeth and inflammation of marginal gingival
metal display in wide interproximal spaces.
46DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
47. If wide interproximal spaces are present ,then step backs
can be provided for upper cingulum bar to prevent its
visibility.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 47
48. INTERRUPTED LINGUAL
PLATE:
It is a type of the lingual plate recommended in wide
interproximal areas.
Here the upper border of the lingual plate is cut longitudinally
to prevent its display through the wider interproximal spaces
48DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
49. SUBLINGUAL BAR
A modification of the lingual bar
Described by Brantenburg and Tryde
Demonstrated to be useful when the height of the floor of the
mouth does not allow placement of the superior border of the
bar at least 4 mm below the free gingival margin is the
sublingual bar.
49
Hansen. C.A, Campbell.D.J. Clinical comparison of two mandibular major connector
designs : The sublingual bar and the lingual plate. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54 (6):805-810
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
50. The bar shape remains essentially the same as that of a
lingual bar, but placement is inferior and posterior to the
usual placement of a lingual bar, lying over and parallel to
the anterior floor of the mouth
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 50
51. INDICATIONS
The height of the floor of the mouth in relation
to the free gingival margin is less than 6mm.
If it is desired to keep the free gingival margins
of anterior teeth exposed and there is
inadequate depth of the floor of the mouth.
51DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
52. CONTRAINDICATIONS
Inoperable/ interfering lingual tori
High attachment of lingual frenum
Interference with elevation of the floor of the mouth
during functional movements.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 52
53. LINGUAL BAR WITH
CINGULUM BAR
(Double lingual bar, Split bar, Kennedy bar, Continuous
lingual clasp).
53DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
54. Referred as “CONTINUOUS LINGUAL CLASP”
major connector, because of series of clasp arms
connected on the lingual surfaces of lower anterior teeth.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 54
55. INDICATIONS
Wide interproximal areas prevent the use of linguo-plate
(in such cases it provides indirect retention)
Wide diastema in lower anteriors
55DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
56. STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Consists of two bars
Upper bar - similar to cingulum bar
Lower bar - similar to lingual bar
The two bars are attached by means of a minor
connector with positive vertical stops on either side to
prevent settling and orthodontic movements.
56DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
57. ADVANTAGES
Effectively extends indirect retention in an anterior direction.
Contributes to horizontal stabilization.
It helps in minor amount of support to the prosthesis.
The gingival tissues and inter-proximal embrasures are not
covered by the connector, which helps in free flow of saliva.
57DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
58. DISADVATAGES
Patient may feel discomfort because it alters the normal
position of the tongue.
If connector does not maintain intimate contact with
tooth surface there will be food entrapment
58DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
59. CINGULUM BAR (CONTINUOUS BAR,
DENTAL BAR)
It is a type of major connector which
rests on the cingulum of the anterior
teeth.
Described by Owell and Taylor (1989)
Modification of the double lingual
bar
59
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
60. INDICATION
When a linguoplate is the major connector of choice, but
the axial alignment of the anterior teeth is such that
excessive blockout of interproximal undercuts must be
made
CONTRAINDICATION
Lingually tilted anterior teeth
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 60
61. Although this design may reduce the possibility of
food entrapment, it may not provide adequate rigidity.
61DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
62. STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Follows the contours of the lingual surface of the
anterior teeth above the cingulum and thus has the
scalloping shape.
Superio-inferiorly it is 3 mm and 1 mm thick.
The cingulum bar enters the non-undercut interdental
space.
62DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
63. LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. For sufficient rigidity, a minimum height of 4 mm and
a thickness of 2.5 mm is necessary.
These dimensions should be increased when the
cingulum bar traverses more natural teeth.
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 63
64. 2. No notches in the metal to simulate tooth contour
should be made because it weakens the bar.
In the presence of reduced height, the bar is placed
more gingivally and made thicker to provide rigidity.
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23
L
A
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 64
65. 3. The junction of the bar to the denture base must be
sufficiently strong.
When premolars are present, the bar can cover the
lingual surfaces of these teeth.
The contour of the teeth should be modified to adapt
them to the path of insertion of the RPD.
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23
L
A
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 65
66. ADVANTAGES
Space problems for bar placement seldom exist except
where anterior teeth have been worn down by attrition.
No pressure is exerted on the gingival tissues when
movement of the RPD occurs
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 66
67. The major connector forms one unit with the anterior
teeth, which contributes to the comfort of the RPD
Indirect retention is provided
Repair of the RPD is simple when natural anterior teeth
are lost
A
D
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
S
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 67
68. DISADVANTAGES
A relative bulky metal bar is situated on the lingual
surfaces of the anterior teeth especially where crowding is
present
Esthetics are compromised when spacing exists
Marked lingual inclination of the anterior teeth
precludes the use of the bar.
Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 68
69. LABIAL BAR
It is a type of the major connector which is placed labial
or buccal to the alveolar ridge and teeth.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 69
70. INDICATIONS
Lingually tilted anterior and posterior teeth (non
correctable).
Presence of large lingual tori.
Severe or abrupt lingual tissue
undercuts
70DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
71. STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Half pear shaped with thickest part towards the labial or
buccal surface and thinnest part towards the marginal
gingival
Usually bulkier than that of lingual bar because of its
longer dimensions.
The superior border: 3-4 mm away form the marginal
gingiva.
71DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
72. The inferior border should be in the labial vestibule
at the junction of attached and unattached mucosa.
Minor connector joined with occlusal or other
superior components by a labial approach.
72DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
73. DISADVANTAGES
The labial/ buccal vestibule is shallow and the major
connector may leads to discomfort to the patient.
It is also bulkier than the lingual bar.
73DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
74. SWING LOCK DENTURE (BY
SIMMON 1960)
Consists of lingual bar/plate and labial bar.
The lingual bar provides the rigidity to the framework
labial bar provides the extra retention and stability.
74
Stewarts clinical removable partial prosthodontics, 3rd EditionDR EAKETHA P LOKESH
75. STRUCTURE DETAILS
The lingual bar or plate is similar to the conventional
designs
The labial bar is connected to lingual major connector
by a hinge joint at one end and a snap joint/latch at the
other end.
75DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
76. The support is obtained by using multiple rests,
which are connected to the lingual bar/plate.
The stabilization and reciprocation is also provided
by lingo plate.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 76
77. The labial bar helps in retention by bar clasps.
The flexibility and retentive quality of the labial
bar depends upon number of teeth remaining and
periodontal condition of the teeth.
77
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
78. The FLEXIBILITY OF THE LABIAL BAR can be
increased by increasing the length of the labial bar i.e.
locating the hinge joint and latch joint one tooth away
from the existing natural teeth.
The FLEXIBILITY OF THE RETENTIVE FINGERS
(1-bar) can be increased by increasing the length and
providing the S-shaped design.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 78
79. INDICATIONS
Missing key abutments, i.e. if premolars and canines are
missing then the retention is obtained by engaging the lingual
as well as labial surfaces of remaining anterior teeth.
Unfavorable tooth or soft tissue contours, i.e. if liberally
tilted teeth or deep lingual undercut.
Teeth with questionable prognosis.
Maxillofacial prosthesis (in cases of hemi-maxilectomy).
79DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
80. CONTRAINDICATIONS
Poor oral hygiene (since the design of the framework is
complex more chance for food/debris accumulation)
Shallow buccal vestibule
Poor patient co-operation.
DR EAKETHA P LOKESH 80
81. ADVANTAGES
This design utilizes all
remaining teeth and thus
provides adequate retention
and stability.
DISADVANTAGES
Poor esthetics because of
metal visibility.
Chances of unwanted,
orthodontic forces to the
teeth.
81DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
82. SUMMARY
A major connector is the component of the partial denture that
connects the parts of the prosthesis located on one side of the
arch with those on the opposite side.
It is that unit of the partial denture to which all other parts are
directly or indirectly attached.
It may be compared to the frame of an automobile or with the
foundation of a building.
82DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
83. In addition to unification, it contributes substantially to
the support of the prosthesis ,in case of a maxillary major
connector.
The mandibular major connector contributes to indirect
retention.
The dentist is fully and totally responsible for the design
and specifications of all components of a removable
partial denture.
83DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
85. TEXTBOOK REFERENCES
1. Rodney D Phoenix, David R Cagna, Charles F DeFreest. Stewarts clinical
removable partial prosthodontics, 3rd Edition, Quintessence books.
2. Alan B Carr, David T Brown. Mc Crackens removable partial
prosthodontics, 12th Edition, 2012, Elsevier Mosby.
3. Alan B Carr, David T Brown. Mc Crackens removable partial
prosthodontics, 1st South Asia Edition, 2012, Elsevier Mosby.
4. Oliver C Applegate “ Essentials of removable partial denture prosthesis”
Kothari Book Depot.
85DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
86. JOURNAL REFERENCES
1. Hansen CA, Campbell DJ. Clinical comparison of two mandibular major
connector designs: the sublingual bar and the lingual plate. J Prosthet Dent
1985;54(6): 804-9.
2. Meeuwissen.R, Keltjens.H.M et al. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991 ;66(2):221-23
3. Kreyer R. Digitally designed RPD framework : embracing new technologies for
higher quality and better results .Inside Dental Technology 2012;3(3)
4. Girardot.R.L. History and development of partial denture design. Journal of
American dental association 1941; 28(9): 1399-1408
5. Glossary of prosthodontic terminology -9
86DR EAKETHA P LOKESH
Partial dentures were once created by bending metal wires and fastening framed ivory teeth to them. Pierre Fauchard, who is considered by many to be the father of modern dentistry, first described this technique in 1728. 1 Techniques were further developed in 1899 when Dr. William G.A. Bonwill described clasping abutments with individually contoured gold circumferential clasps that were then soldered to a main plate or major connector.
The borders should be parallel to the mean marginal gingival line and
if any crossover it should be at right angle to minimize coverage of the delicate marginal tissues.
, the borders of a maxillary major connector should cross the palatal midline at right angles – provides maximum degree of freedom
Unlike maxillary major connectors, for which relief is infrequently required, mandibular major connectors may require relief between a mandibular removable partial denture and the underlying soft tissues.
The amount of relief is dependent upon several factors. For an entirely tooth-supported prosthesis, little or no relief is needed because the denture does not tend to move in function.
If the soft tissues are vertical, or nearly so, only minimal relief is required.
Tissues that slope toward the tongue require the greatest amount of relief because any movement of the connector will bring it into contact with the adjacent soft tissues.
if the anterior ridge is undercut, sufficient space may be created when the technician blocks out the undercut area.
Because of its simplicity in design and construction, a lingual bar should be used unless one of the other connectors offers a definite advantage. A lingual bar is indicated for all tooth-supported removable partial dentures unless there is insufficient space between the marginal gingivae and the floor of the mouth.
The major connector must be contoured so that it does not present sharp margins to the tongue and cause irritation or annoyance by an angular form. The
superior border of a lingual bar connector should be tapered toward the gingival tissue superiorly with its greatest bulk at the inferior border, resulting in a contour that is a half-pear shape. However, care must be taken to avoid making the bar so bulky that it interferes with patient comfort and function.
Availability of space is a key factor in determining
whether a lingual bar can be used. To accommodate a
lingual bar, at least 8 mm of vertical space must be
present between the gingival margins of the teeth and
the floor of the mouth (Fig 2-36). This permits the
major connector to have a minimum height of 5 mm
and allows 3 mm of space between the gingival
margins and the superior border of the bar. Failure to
provide 3 mm of space may lead to irritation of the
adjacent soft tissues.
Inferior border at the ascertained height of the alveolar lingual sulcus when patients tongue is elevated
Step back design in presence of wide embrasure . care must be taken not to decrease the rigidity of the major connector
In this instance the lingual bar has been positioned too close to the gingival margin. The continuous clasp offers only limited tooth support for the denture.
The denture has sunk into the tissues, stripping away the gingival tissues on the distal and lingual aspects
Some times it needs a definite tooth preparation for better support. On either side the cingulum bar is connected to the occlusal rest and thus it will also act as a splint connecting the anterior teeth.
