World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2017 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Different Methods of Abutment Splinting and Attachments on Teeth Kinetics (Part I)

Ahmed N Elsherbini, Wilhelm Niedermeier

Citation Information : N Elsherbini A, Niedermeier W. Comparison of Different Methods of Abutment Splinting and Attachments on Teeth Kinetics (Part I). World J Dent 2017; 8 (5):352-357.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1464

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study was to measure the effect of different attachments: telescopic crown, double Akers’ (DA)clasp, distal clasp (DC)-retained removable partial dentures (RPDs), and cantilever bridge on the intrusive movement of the abutment teeth. Materials and methods: A model imitating mandibular ridge of Kennedy Class I was fabricated with first and second premolar as abutments. A telescopic crown, DA, DC-retained RPDs, and cantilever bridge were fabricated. Each partial denture was placed at a time on the model; 50 N force was applied on each partial denture using ZWICK universal testing machine. The intrusion of the abutments was recorded using SOLARTON device. Data were collected and tabulated. Results: The mean values of the intrusive movement in telescopic separated (TS) RPD, telescopic joined (TJ) RPD, DA RPD, DC RPD, and cantilever bridge in tooth 35 were 147, 75, 57, 334, and 307 μm respectively, and in tooth 45 were 136,81, 65, 435, and 335 μm respectively. Conclusion: It can be concluded from the retrieved data that DA clasp-retained RPD caused less intrusion of the abutments than telescopic crown-retained RPD, followed by the DC than cantilever bridge. Clinical significance: The DA clasp is most favorable in the utilization in mandibular Kennedy Class I situation followed by telescopic crowns.

PDF Share
  1. Abbas, NA. Clinical removable partial denture, 1st ed. Egypt:MSA University Press; 2008
  2. Removable partial denture technology, 2nd ed. Egypt: MSA University Press; 2010
  3. A literature review of two-unit cantilevered FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2004 May-Jun;17(3):281-284
  4. Telescope retainers for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1981 Jan;45(1):37-43
  5. RPA clasp design for distal-extension removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1983 Jan;49(1):25-27
  6. Evaluation of stresses and displacement in different clasp-retained partial dentures: in vitro study. Biomedical Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering. Helwan, Egypt: Helwan University; 2008
  7. The effects of loading locations and direct retainers on the movements of the abutment tooth and denture base of removable partial dentures. J Med Dent Sci 2002 Mar;49(1):11-18
  8. Induced moments and lateral deflections in columns with initial imperfections and semi rigid connections: II. Verification and examples. Dyna (Bilbao) 2012;79:18-19
  9. The cantilever type of posterior fixed partial dentures: a laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent 1970 Jul;24(1):47-67
  10. The cantilever fixed partial denture—a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1992 Apr;67(1):484-487
  11. General relationships between pressure,weight and mass of a hydrostatic fluid. Proc R Soc A 2008 Apr;464(2092):943-950
  12. Clinical longevity of removable partial dentures retained by telescopic crowns: outcome of the double crown with clearance fit. Int J Prosthodont 2001 May-Jun;14(3):207-213
  13. Telescopic crowns used as retainers for Kennedy class II removable partial dentures. J Nep Dent Assoc 2010;11:159-161
  14. Factors affecting displacement of free-end saddle removable partial dentures. Quintessence Int 1991 Jan;22(1):23-27
  15. ; Brown, DT. McCracken’s removable partial denture,12th ed. USA: El Sevier Mosby; 2011. p. 105.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.