RPD Various Classification Systems

2. Presented by:
Dr.Kanika Manral

3. • Introduction
• Need for Classification
• Requirements of a Classification
• Classification based on Major Connector
material
• Various Topographic Classification
Systems
• Conclusion
• References

4. Why
classify??

5. • 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

6. • 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.

7. • 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

8. • 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)

9. • 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)

10. • 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”.

11. • 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

12. • 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

13. MERITS:
• Helps in design
• Allows analysis of support available
DEMERITS:
• Edentulous area has no representation
• No. or class of teeth not elaborated

14. • 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.

15. 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

16. • 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.

17. • 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. • 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.

23. • 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.

24. 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

25. • 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.

26. • 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 PREDOMINATE
a) Posteriors missing, all anteriors in place
b) Posteriors missing, some anteriors missing

27. • Variation2- MISSING ANTERIORS PREDOMINATE
a) Anteriors missing, all posteriors in place
b) Anteriors missing, some posteriors missing

28. 2. CLASS II:TOOTH & TISSUE BEARING
Must 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)

29. DIVISION 1: When there are no teeth posterior to 1 or more span.
• Variation1-MISSING POSTERIORS PREDOMINATE
a) Posteriors missing, all anteriors in place
b) Posteriors missing, some anteriors missing
• Variation2-MISSING ANTERIORS PREDOMINATE
a) Not applicable
b) Anteriors missing, some
posteriors missing

30. • 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 includecuspid).
• Variation1-MISSING POSTERIORS PREDOMINATE
a) Posteriors missing, all anteriors in place
b) Posteriors missing, some anteriors missing

31. • Variation2-MISSING ANTERIORS PREDOMINATE
a) Anteriors missing, all posteriors in place
b) Anteriors missing, some posteriors missing
3. CLASS III:TISSUE BEARING
Completely edentulous
arch

32. 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

33. • Proposed in 1941 by Dr. Edwin. H. Mauk
• Based on studies conducted on over 100
• Classification based on:
The number, position and length of the spaces
The number of position of the remaining teeth

34. • 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.

35. • 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.

36. 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

37. • 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

38. • 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

39. MERITS:
• Differentiates between anterior and
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

40. • 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.

41. 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 saddles
b) 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.

43. MERITS:
• Kind of support, quality of support specified for every individual
edentulous span.
DEMERITS:
• Anteroposterior location of saddle not specified.
specified.
• Quadrant wise location not provided.
• No representation of exact no. or type of teeth missing in the
teeth missing in the edentulous spans

44. • Proposed in 1953 by Dr.Joel Freidman
• Based on location of edentulous space
• Classified as:
A:Anterior edentulous space
B:Bounded posterior edentulous space
C:Posterior free ended or cantilever edentulous space

45. MERITS:
• Simplicity
DEMERITS:
• Location of saddle not specified from quadrant/unilateral-bilateral
quadrant/unilateral-bilateral point of view.
view.
• No representation of exact no. or type of teeth missing in the
of teeth missing in the edentulous spans

46. • Proposed in 1954 by Dr.William H. Craddock
• Classified partially edentulous arches based on support available

47. • 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.

48. 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

49. • 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

50. • 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

51. • 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)

52. • 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

53. 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
teeth missing in the edentulous spans

54. • Proposed in 1957 by Watt et al.
• Based on the type of support derived by the denture.
• Classified into:
I. Entirely tooth supported dentures
II. Entirely tissue supported dentures
III. Partially tooth and partially tissue supported dentures

55. • 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”

56. 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

57. 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.

58. 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
teeth missing in the edentulous spans

59. • 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 arch
3) Combination of 1 & 2

60. • 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.

61. • 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.

62. • 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

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

64. 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.

66. 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
of teeth missing in the edentulous spans.

67. • 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

68. • 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.

69. • 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.

70. 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
edentulous space not described.
• No representation of exact no. or type of teeth missing in the
of teeth missing in the edentulous spans.

71. • 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.

72. • 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

73. • 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.

74. 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.
representation.
• Concept of modification spaces not involved.
involved.
• Individualised representation of teeth missing/present not available.

75. • Proposed in 1974 by Dr.Charles E. Costa
• Based on description of anterior, lateral and terminal edentulous
spaces
• Classifies into:
1) Anterior edentulous space
2) Lateral edentulous space
3) Terminal edentulous space

76. • 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 ofMUCOSA –BORNE & TOOTH- BORNE denture

77. • 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

78. • 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

79. • 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

80. • 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

81. 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
representation wrt location/tooth type/no. of teeth/etc.

82. • 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

84.  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.

85. 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

86. • 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

87. • 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

88. •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 (#).

89. • 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

90. 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

91. • 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.

92. • 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.)

93. • 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.)

94. • 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.)

95. • 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)

96. EXAMPLES:
Mx, Class-I, Type- 1, L5 Mx, Class-II, Type-1R, L5
Mx, Class-III, Type-2R, L5 Mx, Class-III L1,1

97. 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
periodontal status of abutments/general soft tissue structure

99. o 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

100. • 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