The document discusses various aspects of pontic design for fixed dental prostheses. It defines a pontic as an artificial tooth that replaces a missing natural tooth. Ideal requirements for pontics include smooth surfaces, easy cleanability, minimal pressure on the ridge, and no irritation to tissues. Factors such as biologic considerations, oral hygiene, occlusion, esthetics, and materials must be considered in pontic design. Common types of pontics include sanitary, modified sanitary, ridge lap, ovate, and others. Proper pretreatment assessment and fabrication techniques help ensure successful pontic design.

1. Pontics
Preeti kalia
IInd year PG student
Dept of Prosthodontics
A.E.C.S Maaruti College of Dental
Sciences

2. Pontics
Definition
Requirements
Design
Pretreatments
assessment
Types
Fabrication

3. Definition
 Pontic GPT : An
artificial tooth on a
fixed dental
prosthesis that
replaces a missing
natural tooth,
restores its function,
and usually fills the
space previously
occupied by the
clinical crown

4. Definition
 Acc to Tylman –pontic is the
suspended member of a fixed
partial denture. it replaces the lost
natural tooth, restores function
,and occupies the space of the
missing tooth.

5. Ideal requirements of pontics
 Smooth surfaced and convex in all
directions
 Easily cleansable
 Pinpoint pressure free contact on the
ridge
 No irritation to the gingival tissues

6. Ideal requirement of pontics
 Facilitate plaque control
 Emergence profile
 Strength and longevity
 Be esthetic

7. Ideal requirements of pontics
 Restore function
 No abutment overloading
 Color stable

8. Functions of pontics
 Mastication
 Speech
 Esthetics

9. Considerations for a
successful pontic design

10. Biologic considerations
Ridge contact
 Area of contact
with ridge should
be small and
convex.

11. Oral hygiene considerations

12. Pontic materials

13.  Differences in the plaque-retaining capacities
of.samples of a Type III gold, gold for
veneering with porcelain, a vacuum-fired
bonded porcelain Veneer, and an acrylic resin.
 After 48 hours in vivo, the Ceramco metal
and Type III gold specimens accumulated
significantly more dark stains than acrylic
ones
Wise. M et al and Dykema .R, The plaque-retaining capacity of four dental
materials,J Proshtet 1975;33:178

14. Occlusal forces
 Reduce buccolingual width – 30%
to lessen occlusal forces
 12% increase in chewing efficiency
 Pontics with normal occlusal widths
– in the occlusal third area

15. Mechanical considerations
 Improper choice of materials
 Poor framework design
 Poor tooth preparation
 Poor occlusion

16.  It can be seen that the maximum tensile stress
at the solder joint, mesial to the second molar and
above the gingiva, was reduced from2,400
p.s.i, in the conventional pontic to 1,200 p.s.i, in
the sanitary pontic and finally to 720 p.s.i, in the
modified sanitary pontic.
 For the solder joint distal to the second
premolar, also above till gingiva, the reductions
were in the order of 1,920 (C.P.)to 960 (S.P.) to
720 p.s.i. (M.S.P.).
Hood, J. A. Stress and deflection of three different pontic designs. J Prosthet
Dent 33:54-59, 1975

17. Esthetic considerations

18. Incisogingival length
 Root can be
stained to
simulate
exposed
dentine.
 Pink porcelain
to simulate the
gingival tissues

19. Mesiodistal width
 Space
discrepancy –
less problem in
posteriors

20. Mesiodistal width
 Orthodontic treatment
 Pontic of abnormal size-
illusion of natural tooth

21. Pretreatment assessment
Diagnostic cast Wax up

22. Pontic space
Individual crowns of increased proximal contours were preferred
to an FPD with undersized pontics

23. Residual ridge contour
Food entrapment
Loss of residual ridge contour leading to
unesthetic open gingival embrasures

24. Residual ridge contour
Class I defect. Class II defect.
Class III defect.
Sieberts classification

25. Residual ridge contour
Abrams et al showed
Class I defects to constitute 32.4%
Class II- 2.9%
Class III- 55.9%
8.8% having no defects

26. Surgical management of class I
defect
Pouch technique

27. Surgical management of class I
defect
Pouch technique

28. Surgical management of class II
and III defect
Interpostional graft

29. Surgical management of class II
and III defect
onlay graft

30. Gingival architecture preservation

31. Classification
1. Depending on shape of surface
contacting the ridge(Tylmann)
 Sanitary
 Modified sanitary
 Spheroidal
 Saddle
 Ridge lap
 Modified ridgelap
 Ovate

32. 2.According to Rosenstiel depending
on mucosal contact
 A. mucosal contact
ridge lap
modified ridge lap
ovate
conical
 B. No mucosal contact
sanitary(hygenic)
modified sanitary

33. 3.According to the form(Johnston)
Sanitary or Hygenic
Anatomic type
4.Based on materials used
Metal
Metal and porcelain
Metal and resin

34. 5.Prefabricated pontics
Flat back Trupontic
Longpinfacing
Pontips
Reverse pin facings

35. Sanitary or hygienic

36. Modified sanitary pontic

37. Ridge lap pontic

38. Modified ridge lap pontic

39. Conical pontic

40. Ovate pontic

41. Modified ovate pontic
 Contact more labially than ovate pontic
 Easier to clean
 No need of surgical augmentation
 Push the labial gingival margin away to
floss
Liu.S,J Esthet Restor Dent 16:273-283, 2004

42. Residual ridge contour
 To determine the frequency and the
nature of tissue reactions of
underlying residual ridge mucosa to
specific pontic designs, and
 To compare the frequency and the
nature of tissue reactions of residual
ridge mucosa to various materials
used in pontic construction.
Stein.R.S , Pontic residual ridge relationship, J Proshtet Dent 1966;16: 251-285

44. Metal Ceramic pontics
 Uniform veneer of porcelain- 1.2 mm
 Metal surface – smooth and free of pits
 Round angles
 Occlusal centric contacts –
1.5 mm away from junction

45. Metal ceramic pontics
wax the prosthesis

46. All ceramic pontics

47. Resin veneered pontics

48. Fiber reinforced composite
resin pontics

49. Pontic fabrication
 All metal hygienic pontic
 Metal ceramic pontic

50. Armamentarium
 Sable brush
 Plaster bowl
 Spatula
 Quick setting plaster
 Bunsen burner
 PKT waxing instruments- No
1,2,3,4,5
 Beavertail burnisher
 No 7 wax spatula
 Inlay casting wax
 Die lubricant
 Cotton pliers
 Hollow plastic sprue

51. All metal hygienic pontic fabrication

52. All metal hygienic pontic fabrication

53. All metal hygienic pontic fabrication

54. All metal hygienic pontic fabrication

55. All metal hygienic pontic fabrication

56. Metal ceramic pontics
 Requirements
 Adequate bulk of
metal
 Uniform
thickness of
porcelain
 Continuous strip
of metal on
lingual surface

57. Scalloped or trestle design
 Connector is diminished in
faciolingual dimension – Indication
 Bulk or rigidity in connector areas
 Tissue contact – modified ridge lap

58. Metal ceramic pontics
 To produce continuous contour and
uniform thickness of porcelain –
fabricate wax pattern to full contour
and cut back
 Fabricate the copings – No 7 wax
spatula
 Blue inlay wax stick – edentulous
area

59. Metal ceramic pontics
 Check the
alignment in a
mesiodistal and
the facial profile

60. Metal ceramic pontics

61. Metal ceramic pontics

62. Available pontic systems
Advantages Disadvantages Indications Contraindications
Metal Esthetics Difficult if Most Long span with
ceramic Biocompatible abutment not situations high stress
metal ceramic
All metal Strength Non esthetic Mandibular Esthetics
Straightforward molars,
procedure under high
bite force
Fibre Conservative Limited to short Esthetics Long span
reinforced with inlays spans
all resin Esthetics
Facings Rarely used Rarely used Rarely used Rarely used

63. Review of literature
Kumbulolu.O et al, A Different Pontic Design for Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Bridgeworks: A Clinical Report, Eur J Dent. 2007 January; 1(1): 50–53.

64. Review of literature
Kim.T.H.Yet al, Simulated tissue using unique pontic design, J
Prosthet Dent 2009;102:205-210

65. References
 Malone W.F.P., Koth D.L., Cavazos E.
: Tylman’s theory of practice of fixed
prosthodontics. 8 Ed., lshiyaku
publications, 1993,357-370
 Rosenstiel R.F., Land M.F., Fujimot J.:
Contemporary fixed prosthodontics.
4th Ed., Mosby
Publications, 2007, 616-648

66. References
 Shillingburg H.T., Hobo S., Whisett
L.D., Jacobi R., Brackett S.E.
Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics,
3 Ed., Quintessence
Publication,2007,India ,485-506
 Stein.R.S , Pontic residual ridge
relationship, J Proshtet Dent 1966;16:
251-285

67. References
 Wise. M et al and Dykema .R, The
plaque-retaining capacity of four dental
materials,J Proshtet 1975;33:178
 Liu.S ,Use of a modified ovate pontic in
areas of ridge defects: A report of 2
cases, J Esthet Restor Dent 16:273-
283, 2004

68. References
 Kumbulolu.O et al, A Different Pontic
Design for Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Bridgeworks: A Clinical Report, Eur J
Dent. 2007 January; 1(1): 50–53.
Kim.T.H.Yet al, Simulated tissue using
unique pontic design, J Prosthet Dent
2009;102:205-210

69. References
 R.Duane Douglas ,Pontic design
 FPDpontic wax up .ppt
 FPD.ppt