Connectors in RPD

CONNECTORS IN RPD
PRESENTED BY
DR ARUN KUMAR C S

Connector - The portion of a removable partial denture that unites its
components. -(GPT 9)
The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 May;117(5S):e1-e105.
DEFINITION

Connectors in CPD
Major connector Minor connector

Major Connector
The part of a partial removable dental prosthesis that joins the
components on one side of the arch to those on the opposite side .
- (GPT 9)
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 .
- McCraken
McCraken Removable Partial Prosthodontics, 12 edi-Alan B Carr

Requirements
 Rigid & provides cross-archstability - broad distribution of
stress.
 Vertical support and protect the soft tissues
 Means for obtaining indirect retention.
 Provide a means for placement of one or more denture
bases
 Promote patient comfort
Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David
R. Cagna, Charles F. DeFreest. Quintessence 3rd ed.

Types
• Palatal bar
• Palatal strap
• Anteroposterior palatal bar or double palatalbar
• Horseshoe shaped or U-shaped connector
• Anteroposterior palatal strap or closedhorse
• Complete palate

Selection criteria
• Location of edentulous space.
• Required amount of support.
• Degree of rigidity.
• Patient preference.
• Anticipated loss of natural teeth.
• Location of fulcrum line.
Krol AR,Jacobson TH .Removable Partial Denture Design.5th edition.Indent pub

Design
A. Placement of borders.
B. Relief.
C. Internal finish line.
D. Future loss of natural teeth.

Palatal Bar
• It is a bar running across the palate
• Narrow half oval in cross section with its thickest point in the center.
• Most prefered in function
Wagner AG, Traweek FC. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Mar;47(3):242-5

Indication
• Interim partial denture.
• Kennedy class III limited to replacing one or two teeth both
sides.
Disadvantages
• Difficult for patient to get adjusted.
• Little support from palate.
• Should be no further anteriorly than second premolar.
Wagner AG, Traweek FC. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Mar;47(3):242-5

PALATAL STRAP MAJOR CONNECTOR
• Bilateral tooth-supported major prostheses,
Indications
• Bilateral edentulous spaces of short span
• Tooth-supported restoration.
Characteristics and Location
(1) Posterior border at right angle to median suture line.
(2) Strap should be 8 mm wide anteroposteriorly.
(3) Confined with four principal rests.

• Two or more planes - great resistance to bending and twisting forces.
• "L-beam" principle .
• Relatively thin.
• Little interference with normal tongue action.
• Increased tissue coverage – distribute stresses over a larger area.
Advantage
• Excessive palatal coverage.
• Associated with papillary hyperplasia.
Disadvantage

ANTEROPOSTERIOR PALATAL BAR/DOUBLE PALATAL BAR
• Two bars—connected by flat longitudinal elements on lateral slope of palate.
• Flat narrow anterior strap positioned in the rugae valleys.
• Posterior bar half oval and less bulky.
• Deformation under micrometer microscope – most rigid.
Ben-Ur Z, Matalon S, Aviv I, Cardash HS. Rigidity of major connectors when subjected to bending and torsion forces.
J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Nov;62(5):557-62.

• When anterior and posterior abutment teeth are separated.
• Large inoperable palatal tori.
• Patient who wants to avoid complete palatal coverage.
• Class II and Class IV conditions.
Indications :

Advantages :
• Rigid.
• Strong L-beam effect - good resistance.
• Limited soft tissue coverage.
Disadvantages :
• Less palatal support.
• Not indicated with high narrow palatal vault.
• Uncomfortable with multiple borders.
• Interference to the tongue.

• Most flexible
• Consists of a thin band of metal running
along the lingual surfaces of the remaining
teeth.
• Extending on to the palatal tissues for 6 to 8
mm.
• Anteriorly covers the cingula .
• Posteriorly it extends 6–8mm onto the
palatal tissues.
HORSESHOE CONNECTOR/ U-SHAPED CONNECTOR

More flexible.
Not allow transfer of forces from one side to the other .
Doubling the thickness - improved the rigidity of the framework to
torsional loads.
Green LK, Hondrum SO (2003) The effect of design modifications on the torsional and compressive rigidity of U-shaped palatal
major connectors. J Prosthet Dent 89(4):400–407

Indications
• Anterior teeth replacement
• In patients with tori and prominent mid palatine suture.
• Need to stabilize anterior teeth
Advantages
• Derives some vertical support and indirect retention from palate
Disadvantages
• Less resistance to flexing and movement at open end
• Cannot be used in distal extension
• Greaterbulk in anterior part- interference in phonetics and patient
comfort

• Structurally rigid major connector
• Used in most maxillary partial denture applications
• Two palatal straps- one anterior and other posterior,
connected by flat longitudinal elements .
CLOSED HORSE/ ANTEROPOSTERIOR PALATAL
STRAP
LaVere AM, Krol AJ. Selection of a major connector for the extension-base removable partial denture. 1973. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Sep;94(3):207-8

Characteristics and Location
(1) Parallelogram shaped and open in center portion.
(2) Relatively broad (8 to 10 mm) anterior and posterior palatal straps.
(3) Lateral palatal straps (7 to 9 mm) narrow and parallel to curve of arch; 6
mm from gingival crevices .
(4) Anterior strap: Follows the valleys of the rugae .
(5) Posterior connector: Junction of hard and soft palate upto hamular notch .
Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics. 11th

Indications –
(1) Class I and II arches in which excellent abutment and residual ridge
support exists.
(2) Long edentulous spans in Class II, modification 1 arches.
(3) Class IV arches in which anterior teeth must be replaced with a
removable partial denture.
(4) Inoperable palatal tori that do not extend posteriorly to the junction of
the hard and soft palates.
Bhojaraju N, Srilakshmi J, Vishwanath G. Study of deflections in maxillary major connectors: a finite element analysis.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014 Mar;14(1):50-60

Advantages:
• Rigid with less thickness
• Good palatal support
• Strong, L-beam effect
Disadvantages:
• Interference with phonetics and patient comfort in some case.
• Bending to torsional forces.
Bhojaraju N, Srilakshmi J, Vishwanath G. Study of deflections in maxillary major connectors: a finite element analysis.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014 Mar;14(1):50-60

Complete Palate
• Provides the ultimate rigidity and support.
• Provides the greatest amount of tissue coverage.
• Anterior border must be kept 6 mm from the marginal
gingivae, or it must cover the cingula of the anterior
teeth.
• Posterior border should extend to the junction of the
hard and soft palates.

Indications -
(1)Situations in which only some or all anterior teeth remain.
(2) Class II with posterior modification space and missing anteriors.
(3) Class I with one to four premolars and anterior teeth remaining
(4)Abutment support is poor .
(5)Residual ridges with extreme vertical resorption.

• Middle major connector recommended for phonetic function
Wada J, Hideshima M, Inukai S, Ando T, Igarashi Y, Matsuura H. Influence of the major connector in a maxillary denture on phonetic function.
J Prosthodont Res. 2011 Oct;55(4):234-42.

Poor periodontal support Palatal strap/complete palate
Anterior teeth replacement Horse shoe/closed/complete
Adequate periodontal support Double palatal bar
Palatal tori Anteropost palatal bar/closed
Distal extention closed/complete
Campbell LD. Subjective reactions to major connector designs for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1977 May;37(5):507-16.
Patients adapted best to major connectors that covered the least amount of soft tissues.

Design
Superior borders-
Mandible -3mm form the gingival margins.
Relief (mandible): To prevent tissue impingement at
rest & function.
1) Tooth-borne prostheses: 30 guage,0.010 inches.
2) Tooth/tissue-borne prostheses: More relief is
required.

Relief required for tooth/tissue-borne prostheses depends upon:
a) Relationship of fulcrum line to major connector:
1) When the fulcrum line is posterior to the major
connector, less relief is required .
2) When the fulcrum line isanterior to the major connector,
more relief isrequired .

3) Shape of adjacent alveolar ridge: The lingual slope of the
alveolar ridge influences the amount of relief required, due to
the rotation of the prosthesis tissue-wards.
Quality of supporting structures:
1) Periodontal status of abutment teeth
2) Quality of the supporting soft tissues
3) Bone index
4) Movement of the dento-alveolar
segment
5) Lingual tori

Types Of Mandibular Major Connectors
• Lingual bar
• Sublingual bar
• Cingulum bar (continuous bar)
• Lingual Plate
• Labial bar

Lingual Bar Major Connector
• Commonly used mandibular major connector .
• Half-pear shaped bar .
• Superior border located below the gingival
border and the gingival margin.
• Requires at least 8mm of vertical space .

Indications:
8mm vertical space.
Contraindications:
• Inoperable lingualtori.
• Highlingual frenum attachment.

Characteristics and location
• Half-pear shapedwith bulkiest portion inferiorlylocated.
• Superior border tapered to softtissue.
• Superior border located at least 3mminferior togingival margins.
• Inferior border located at the ascertained height of the alveolar lingual
sulcuswhen the patients tongue isslightly elevated.

Pearshaped - most rigid.
Half pear- or half drop- combine rigidity and comfort .
> flexibility

SublingualBar
Indications
• Height of the floor less than 6mm.
• Free gingival margins of anterior teeth exposed .
• Inadequate depth of the floor of the mouth.
Contraindications:
• Lingually tilted remaining natural teeth.
• Inoperable lingual tori.
• High attached lingual frenum.
Hansen CA, Campbell DJ. Clinical comparison of two mandibular major connector designs: the sublingual bar and the lingual plate.
J Prosthet Dent. 1985 Dec;54(6):805-9

• Less than 90O from the vertical.
• Sulcus dimensions are retained on the master cast .
• Increased width ensures rigidity .
• Sublingual bar compares favorably with the lingual plate.
J Prosthet Dent. 1985 Dec;54(6):805-9.

Lingual plate
Indications:
• High lingual frenum , shallow vestibule.
• Severe vertical resorption
• Presence of lingual tori.
• Stabilization of periodontally weak teeth.
Contraindications:
• In lingually inclined mandibular anterior teeth.
• Wide embrassures and diastema

Characteristicsandlocation
• Half-pear shaped with bulkiest portion inferiorly located.
• Thin metal apron extending superiorly to contact cingula of anterior teeth.
• Scalloped contour of apron as dictated by interproximal blockout.
• The superior border - knife edge and contoured to intimately above
the cingula.
• Close inter proximal space to level of contact points.

Interrupted LingualPlate
o 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

ADVANTAGES
• Provides more support and stabilization.
• Stabilize the periodontally weakened teeth.
• Supported at each end to the action of indirect retention.
• Provision to include more teeth in the design
• Lingual plate is more rigid major connector with least deflection
Satheesh Kumar KS, Preeti SK, Savadi R, Patel R, Vinod V, John J. Deflections in Mandibular Major Connectors: A FEM Study.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013 Dec;13(4):560-70.

DISADVANTAGES
• Covers the tooth structure and the gingival tissue.
• Metal coverage of the free gingival tissue prevents physiological
stimulation and self-cleansing of these areas by saliva.

Double lingual bar
• Also called “Kennedy bar”
• Distribute stresses to all of the teeth with which it comes in
contact there by reducing the stresses to the underlying tissues.
• “continuous lingual clasp” major connector, because of series of
clasp arms connected on the lingual surfaces of lower anterior
teeth.

Characteristics and location
• The lower component displays charecteristics as lingual bar.
• The upper bar - half oval ,2-3mm in height and 1mm thick,
presenting scallopped appearance.
• Two bars joined by minor connectors on each end.
ed, st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

ADVANTAGES
• Effectively extends indirect retention in an anterior direction.
• Contributes to horizontal stabilization.
• Helps in minor amount of support to the prosthesis.
• Gingival tissues and inter-proximal embrassures are not covered by
the connector.

DISADVANTAGES
• Patient discomfort .
• Food entrapment.

LabialBar
Indication:
• Large inoperable lingual tori.
• Severe & abrupt lingual undercuts.
• Lingually inclined lower anterior & premolars.

• Half-pear shaped with bulkiest portion inferiorly located on the
buccal aspect.
• Superior border tapered to soft tissue and 4mm inferior to labial
gingival margins.
• Inferior border located in the labial buccal vestibule; at the junction
of attached & mobile mucosa.

Hingedcontinuous labialbar
Indications:
• Missing key abutments.
• Unfavorable tooth contour.
• Unfavorable soft tissue contours.
• Teeth with questionable prognosis.
Contraindications:
• Poororal hygiene.
• Shallowbuccallabialvestibule.
• Highfrenal attachment.
Shah RJ, Lagdive SB, Saini SL, Verma VB, Shah SR. An Ingenious Modification in Conventional Swing Lock Cast Partial Denture for Rehabilitating
A Hemi Mandibulectomy Defect. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jan;11(1):ZD01-ZD03

• Thistype of major connector isthe modification of linguoplate which is
incorporated in the“Swing-lock”
• Designconsists of labial bar i.e. connected tothe major connector by
hinge on one end and latch at the otherend.
Shah RJ, Lagdive SB, Saini SL, Verma VB, Shah SR. An Ingenious Modification in Conventional Swing Lock Cast Partial Denture for Rehabilitating
A Hemi Mandibulectomy Defect. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jan;11(1):ZD01-ZD03

CAD-CAM
• RPDs fabricated with rapid prototyping techniques showed distinct
fitting irregularities
• Conventional cast RPD groups revealed better fit and accuracy as to
CAD-CAM
Soltanzadeh P, Suprono MS, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre C, Gregorius W. An In Vitro Investigation of Accuracy and Fit of Conventional
and CAD/CAM Removable Partial Denture Frameworks. J Prosthodont. 2018 Nov 8
Arnold C, Hey J, Schweyen R, Setz JM. Accuracy of CAD-CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures.
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Apr;119(4):586-592. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.017.

• Resin framework was judged to fit the digitally fabricated polyurethane
cast as well as the mouth
Kattadiyil, M. T., Mursic, Z., AlRumaih, H. & Goodacre, C. J. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental
prosthesis fabrication. J. Prosthet. Dent. 112, 444–448,

• 3D printed Rpd framework
• Major connectors derived from intraoral digital impressions is worse
than that from extraoral digital impressions,
Gan N, Ruan Y, Sun J, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Comparison of Adaptation between the Major Connectors Fabricated from Intraoral Digital Impressions and Extraoral
Digital Impressions. Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 11;8(1):529.

PEEK
• Retentive force
• Undercuts
• RPD metal-free framework with PEEK resulted in a prosthesis with
adequate fit, and good patient satisfaction .
Harb IE, Abdel-Khalek EA, Hegazy SA. CAD/CAM Constructed Poly(etheretherketone) (PEEK) Framework of Kennedy Class I Removable Partial Denture:
A Clinical Report. J Prosthodont. 2018 Oct 21.

Minor connectors
Components that serve as the connecting link between major
connector or base of a removable partial denture and other
components of the prosthesis, such as the clasp assembly, indirect
retainers, occlusal rests , or cingulum rests.
-GPT 9

Functions
• Join other units of the prostheses .
• Transfer functional stresses .
• Distributes the stresses against components .
• Distributes forces on ridge and teeth.

Formandlocation
• Sufficient bulk to be rigid.
• Axial surface should be located on the embrasure.
• Thickest towards the lingual surface than contact area.
• Deepest interdental embrassure blocked .
• Tapered to the teeth.

• Wide enough to use the guiding plane to the fullest advantage.
• When it gives rise to clasp arm it should be tapered.
• Gingival attachment loss is more on proximal aspect of embrasures .
• The framework strong retention for acrylic resin bases allowed the use
of a greater bulk of acrylic resin projecting through openings in the
metal retention design.
“Avariation in minor connector design for partial dentures,Radford DR, Walter JD Int JProsthodont. 1993Jan-Feb;6(1):50-4.”
“Dunny JA, King G E, Minor connector designs for anterior acrylic resin bases: a preliminary study. JProsthet Dent1975,34:496-502.”

Types–
• Join the clasp assembly to the major connector.
• Join direct retainers or auxillary rests to the major connector.
• Join the denture base to the major connector.
• Serve as an approach arm for a vertical projection or bar type.

Minor connectorsthat join the clasp assemblyto the
majorconnector.
• Should be rigid to support - retentive clasp.
• Support the component of the prosthesis that prevents
vertical movement towards the tissue(Rest).
• Located on proximal surfaces of teeth adjacent to
edentulous areas.

• Should be broad buccolingually but thin mesiodistally.
• Clasp assembly must be positioned in embrassure.
• X convex lingual surface of tooth.

Minor connectorsthat join indirect retainers or
auxillary reststo majorconnectors.
• Arises from the major connector.
• Form a right angle with major connector.
• Designed to lie in the embrassure disguise bulk .

Minor connectorthat join denture baseto major
connector
• Latticework construction
• Mesh construction
• Bead ,wire,or nail head minor connectors

Openlatticeworkconstruction
• Consists of 2 struts of metal(12-16guage).
• One buccal other – lingual.
• Smaller struts connect the two and form the
lattice work.

• Longitudinal struts avoided– artificial teeth arrangement.
• Relief space given .
• Acrylic denture base will be formed in this space.
• Locking of acrylic resin provides retention of denture base.
• Used – multiple teeth replacements.
• >metal failure & deformation.
Brown DT, Desjardins RP, Chao EY. Fatigue failure in acrylic resin retaining minor connectors. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Sep;58(3):329-35

Meshconstruction
• Thin sheet of metal with multiple small holes that extends
over crest of residual ridge to the buccal,lingual and
posterior limits.
• Most suggested for replacement of multiple teeth.
• Major drawback– difficult to pack acrylic.
• Does not provide a strong attachment for denture base.
Brown DT, Desjardins RP, Chao EY. Fatigue failure in acrylic resin retaining minor connectors. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Sep;58(3):329-35

Tissue stops
• Stability for frame work during transfer and processing.
• Distortion of framework during acrylic resin processing.
• Engage buccal and lingual slopes for stability.
• Using lattice or mesh.
• waxed as a projection on framework after casting.

Bead wire,or Nail head retention
• No relief / tissue stop.
• Attached to outer or superior surface of metal base.
• Retention by projections of metal on this surface.
• Projections may be – beads,wires,or nail heads.
• Ineffective retention of acrylic
Dunny JA, King GE. Minor connector designs for anterior acrylic resin bases: a preliminary study. J PROSTHET DENT
1975;34:496-502.

Finishlines
• Finishing line junction– not greater than 90 degree.
• Finish line too far medially– natural contour of
palate altered by thickness of acrylic resin.
• Too far buccally– difficult to create a natural contour
of acrylic resin on lingual surface .
• 90 degree butt-type joint given for junction of minor
connectors and bar-type direct retainers.

Internal finishlines
• Formed from relief waxes used over edentulous ridge
on master cast.
• 24-26 guage thick.
• Margins of relief wax – internal finish line.
• Ledge created by wax – sharp and define

External finishlines
• Sharp and definite and should be slightly undercut to help lock acrylic resin
securely to major connector .
• Angle – less than 90 degree.
• Should extend on to the proximal surface of teeth .
• Finish line begins at lingual extent of rest seat
and continues on proximal surface of the tooth.

Minor connector that serveasapproach armfor
verticalprojection or bar-typeclasp.
• Only non rigid minor connector.
• Supports a direct retainer that engages an undercut on a
tooth from below.
• Approaches tooth from gingival margin.
• Should be smooth,even and taper from its origin to its
terminus.

Conclusion
• Proper designing the connector for the partial edentulous space is
necessary to perform function. It is important for clinicians to
understand the possible movements in response to function and help
control these movements

References
• Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable
partial Prothodontics. 11th ed, st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53.
• Stewart K L, Rudd K D, Kuebker W A, Minor connector in
Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. 2nd ed, 2004, 22-42.
• Miller E L, Grasso J E, Major connector in Removable Partial Prosthodontics. 2nd ed,
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1979, 175-94.
• Krol AR,Jacobson TH .Removable Partial Denture Design.5th edition.Indent;2001,33-
45.

• Dunny JA, King G E, Minor connector designs for anterior acrylic resin bases: a
preliminary study. JProsthet Dent 1975,34:496-502.
• Brown D T,Desjardins R P,Chao EY.Fatigue failure in acrylic resin retaining
minorconnections. JProsthet Dent 1987;58:329-35.
• Wagner AG, Traweek FC. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Mar;47(3):242-5 .
• Brown DT, Desjardins RP, Chao EY. Fatigue failure in acrylic resin retaining minor
connectors. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Sep;58(3):329-35 .
• Avariation in minor connector design for partial dentures,Radford DR,
Walter JD Int JProsthodont. 1993 Jan-Feb;6(1):50-4.
• Davenport JC, Basker RM, Heath JR, Ralph JP, Glantz P-O, Hammond P.
Connectors. British Dental Journal 2001;190: 184–191.

• Meeuwissen R, Keltjens HM, Battistuzzi PG. Cingulum bar as a major connector for
mandibular removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Aug;66(2):221-3.
• Hansen CA, Campbell DJ. Clinical comparison of two mandibular major connector
designs: the sublingual bar and the lingual plate. J Prosthet Dent. 1985
Dec;54(6):805-9.
• Satheesh Kumar KS, Preeti SK, Savadi R, Patel R, Vinod V, John J. Deflections in
Mandibular Major Connectors: A FEM Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013
Dec;13(4):560-70.
• LaVere AM, Krol AJ. Selection of a major connector for the extension-base
removable partial denture. 1973. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Sep;94(3):207-8
• Bhojaraju N, Srilakshmi J, Vishwanath G. Study of deflections in maxillary major
connectors: a finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014 Mar;14(1):50-
60

• Green LK, Hondrum SO (2003) The effect of design modifications on the torsional and
compressive rigidity of U-shaped palatal major connectors. J Prosthet Dent 89(4):400–
407
• Wagner AG, Traweek FC. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Mar;47(3):242-5
• Ben-Ur Z, Matalon S, Aviv I, Cardash HS. Rigidity of major connectors when subjected to
bending and torsion forces. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Nov;62(5):557-62.
• Shah RJ, Lagdive SB, Saini SL, Verma VB, Shah SR. An Ingenious Modification in
Conventional Swing Lock Cast Partial Denture for Rehabilitating A Hemi Mandibulectomy
Defect. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jan;11(1):ZD01-ZD03
• Gan N, Ruan Y, Sun J, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Comparison of Adaptation between the Major
Connectors Fabricated from Intraoral Digital Impressions and Extraoral Digital
Impressions. Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 11;8(1):529.

• Han J, Wang Y, Lü P. A preliminary report of designing removable partial
denture frameworks using a specifically developed software package. Int J
Prosthodont. 2010 Jul-Aug;23(4):370-5.
• Henderson D. Major connectors for mandibular removable partial dentures:
design and function. J Prosthet Dent. 1973 Oct;30(4 Pt 2):532-48.
• Harb IE, Abdel-Khalek EA, Hegazy SA. CAD/CAM Constructed Poly(etheretherketone)
(PEEK) Framework of Kennedy Class I Removable Partial Denture: A Clinical Report. J
Prosthodont. 2018 Oct 21.
• Wada J, Hideshima M, Inukai S, Ando T, Igarashi Y, Matsuura H. Influence of the
major connector in a maxillary denture on phonetic function.
J Prosthodont Res. 2011 Oct;55(4):234-42.

Connectors in RPD

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Connectors in RPD

Similar to Connectors in RPD (20)

More from aruncs92

More from aruncs92 (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Connectors in RPD