Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.3.189

A clincal study of Kennedy classification and framework design of removable partial denture in Kyungpook National University hospital  

Cha, Phill-Seon (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Jeong, In-Yeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Cho, Sung-Am (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.48, no.3, 2010 , pp. 189-193 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This study was aimed to investigate the frequency of different classes of partial edentulism and the most frequently used design components of conventional removable partial dentures. Materials and methods: 63 patients who were treated with removable partial denture in Kyungpook National University hospital for 2003-2006 were selected. A total of 76 removable partial denture frameworks were investigated. Kennedy classification was used to identify the class of partial edentulism. Results: Results indicated that Kennedy class I removable partial dentures were the most frequently constructed. Most patients' cases were designed without modification areas. Conclusion: The most common type of direct retainer were the RPI clasp and RPA clasp in both maxilla and mandible. Lingual bar, linguoplate and anterior posterior palatal straps were the more frequently used mandibular and maxillary major connectors respectively. We did not have any case about Kennedy class IV patients.
Keywords
Framework design; Kennedy classification; Modification area; RPI;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Al-Johany SS, Andres C. ICK classification system for partially edentulous arches. J Prosthodont 2008;17:502-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Abbo B. Tooth-implant borne RPD: A case report. Dent Today 2010;29:118, 120, 122.
3 Ohkubo C, Kobayashi M, Suzuki Y, Hosoi T. Effect of implant support on distal-extension removable partial dentures: in vivo assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1095-101.
4 Ohkubo C, Kurihara D, Shimpo H, Suzuki Y, Kokubo Y, Hosoi T. Effect of implant support on distal extension removable partial dentures: in vitro assessment. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:52-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Armellini DB, Heydecke G, Witter DJ, Creugers NH. Effect of removable partial dentures on oral health-related quality of life in subjects with shortened dental arches: a 2-center cross-sectional study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:524-30.
6 Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, Falcon-Antenucci RM, Goiato MC, Gennari Filho H. Evaluation of different retention systems on a distal extension removable partial denture associated with an osseointegrated implant. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:727-34.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Inukai M, Baba K, John MT, Igarashi Y. Does removable partial denture quality affect individuals'oral health? J Dent Res 2008;87:736-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Phoenix RD, Cagna DR, Defreest CF. Clinical removable partial prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 2004.
9 Jones JD, Turkyilmaz I, Garcia LT. Removable partial dentures--treatment now and for the future. Tex Dent J 2010;127:365-72.
10 Levin L. Dealing with dental implant failures. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16:171-5.   DOI
11 Uludag B, Celik G. Technical tips for improved retention and stabilization of a unilateral removable partial denture. J Oral Implantol 2007;33:344-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Owall BE, Taylor RL. A survey of dentitions and removable partial dentures constructed for patients in North America. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:465-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Witter DJ, van Palenstein Helderman WH, Creugers NH, Kayser AF. The shortened dental arch concept and its implications for oral health care. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:249-58.
14 Sadig WM, Idowu AT. Removable partial denture design: a study of a selected population in Saudi Arabia. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002;3:40-53.
15 Kuzmanovic DV, Payne AG, Purton DG. Distal implants to modify the Kennedy classification of a removable partial denture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:8-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Basker RM, Harrison A, Davenport JC, Marshall JL. Partial denture design in general dental practice-10 years on. Br Dent J 1988;165:245-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 National Institute of Dental Research. Oral health of United States adults: the National Survey of Oral Health in U.S. Employed Adults and Seniors, 1985-1986: national findings. Bethesda, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1987:3-31; NIH publication no. 87-2868.
18 Al-Omiri MK, Karasneh JA, Lynch E, Lamey PJ, Clifford TJ. Impacts of missing upper anterior teeth on daily living. Int Dent J 2009;59:127-32.
19 Frantz WR. Variations in a removable maxillary partial denture design by dentists. J Prosthet Dent 1975;34:625-33.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Goldfogel MH. Evolution of removable partial denture design. J Prosthodont 1994;3:158-66.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Mijiritsky E, Ormianer Z, Klinger A, Mardinger O. Use of dental implants to improve unfavorable removable partial denture design. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:744-6, 748, 750.
22 Frantz WR. Variability in dentists'designs of a removable maxillary partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29:172-82.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Applegate OC. The rationale of partial denture choice. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:891-907.   DOI
24 Carr AB, McGivney GP, Brown DT. McCraken's removable partial prosthodontics. Mosby, Inc; 2005.
25 Harvey WL, Hoffman W Jr. Ten-year study of trends in removable prosthodontic service. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:644-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Sykora O, Calikkocaoglu S. Maxillary removable partial denture designs by commercial dental laboratories. J Prosthet Dent 1970;23:633-40.   DOI   ScienceOn