Connectors in RPD

connectors in removable partial denture

1. CONNECTORS IN RPD PRESENTED BY DR ARUN KUMAR C S

2. 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

3. M ajor 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

4. Requirements Rigid & provides cross-arch stability - broad distribution of stress. V ertical support and protect the soft tissues M eans 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.

5. Maxillary major connector

6. Types Palatal bar Palatal strap Anteroposterior palatal bar or double palatal bar Horseshoe shaped or U-shaped connector Anteroposterior palatal strap or closed horse Complete palate

7. 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.5 th edition.Indent pub

8. Design Placement of borders. Relief. Internal finish line. Future loss of natural teeth. Krol AR,Jacobson TH .Removable Partial Denture Design.5 th edition.Indent pub

9. Palatal Bar It is a bar running across the palate N arrow half oval in cross section with its thickest point in the center . Most prefered in function 10 Wagner AG, Traweek FC. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Mar;47(3):242-5

10. 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

11. PALATAL STRAP MAJOR CONNECTOR Bilateral tooth-supported major prostheses, Indications Bilateral edentulous spaces of short s pan Tooth-supported restoration . Characteristics and Location Posterior border at right angle to median suture line. Strap should be 8 mm wide anteroposteriorly . Confined with four principal rests. Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

12. T wo or more planes - great resistance to bending and twisting forces. " L-beam" principle . R elatively thin. L ittle interference with normal tongue action. I ncreased tissue coverage – distribute stresses over a larger area. Advantage E xcessive palatal coverage. A ssociated with papillary hyperplasia. Disadvantage Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

13. ANTEROPOSTERIOR PALATAL BAR/ DOUBLE PALATAL BAR T wo bars—connected by flat longitudinal elements on lateral slope of palate. F lat 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.

14. W hen anterior and posterior abutment teeth are separated. L arge inoperable palatal tori . P atient who wants to avoid complete palatal coverage . Class II and Class IV conditions. Indications : 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.

15. 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 . I nterference to the tongue . Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

16. M ost flexible C onsists of a thin band of metal running along the lingual surfaces of the remaining teeth . E xtending on to the palatal tissues for 6 to 8 mm. Anteriorly covers the cingula . P osteriorly it extends 6–8mm onto the palatal tissues. HORSESHOE CONNECTOR/ U-SHAPED CONNECTOR 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.

17. 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

18. 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 C annot be used in distal extension Greater bulk in anterior part- interference in phonetics and patient comfort

19. St ructurally rigid major connector U sed 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

20. Characteristics and Location 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: F ollows the valleys of the rugae . ( 5) Posterior connector: J unction of hard and soft palate up to hamular notch . Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics . 11 th ed , st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

21. Indications – Class I and II arches in which excellent abutment and residual ridge support exists. 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

22. 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

23. Complete Palate P rovides the ultimate rigidity and support . P rovides the greatest amount of tissue coverage. A nterior border must be kept 6 mm from the marginal gingivae, or it must cover the cingula of the anterior teeth. P osterior border should extend to the junction of the hard and soft palates. Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

24. Indications - S ituations 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) A butment support is poor . (5)Residual ridges with extreme vertical resorption. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. Mandibular major connector

28. D esign S uperior borders - Mandible - 3 mm form the gingival margins. Relief (mandible) : To prevent tissue impingement at rest & function . Tooth-borne prostheses: 30 guage,0.010 inches. Tooth/tissue-borne prostheses: More relief is required. Krol AR,Jacobson TH .Removable Partial Denture Design.5 th edition.Indent pub

29. 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 is anterior to the major connector, more relief is required . Krol AR,Jacobson TH .Removable Partial Denture Design.5 th edition.Indent pub

30. 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: Periodontal status of abutment teeth Quality of the supporting soft tissues Bone index Movement of the dento-alveolar segment Lingual tori Krol AR,Jacobson TH .Removable Partial Denture Design.5 th edition.Indent pub

31. T ypes Of Mandibular Major Connectors Lingual bar Sublingual bar Cingulum bar (continuous bar) Lingual Plate L abial bar

32. Lingual Bar Major Connector C ommonly used mandibular major connector . H alf-pear shaped bar . Superior border located below the gingival border and the gingival margin. Requires at least 8mm of vertical space . 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

33. Indications: 8mm vertical space. Contraindications: Inoperable lingual tori . High lingual frenum attachment. Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

34. Characteristics and location Half-pear shaped with bulkiest portion inferiorly located. Superior border tapered to soft tissue. Superior border located at least 3mm inferior to gingival margins. Inferior border located at the ascertained height of the alveolar lingual sulcus when the patients tongue is slightly elevated. Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics . 11 th ed , st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

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

36. Sublingual Bar Indications H eight of the floor less than 6mm. F ree gingival margins of anterior teeth exposed . I nadequate 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

37. Less than 90 O from the vertical . S ulcus dimensions are retained on the master cast . I ncreased width ensures rigidity . Sublingual bar compares favorably with the lingual plate. 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.

38. 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 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

39. Characteristics and location 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. 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

40. Interrupted Lingual Plate 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 Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

41. ADVANTAGES Provides more support and stabilization. S tabiliz e the periodontally weakened teeth. S upported 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.

42. DISADVA N TAGES C overs the tooth structure and the gingival tissue. M etal coverage of the free gingival tissue prevents physiological stimulation and self-cleansing of these areas by saliva.

43. Double lingual bar A lso called “ Kennedy bar ” D istribute 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.

44. Characteristics and location The lower component displays charecteristics a s 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 . Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics . 11 th ed , st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

45. ADVANTAGES Effectively extends indirect retention in an anterior direction. Contributes to horizontal stabilization. H elps in minor amount of support to the prosthesis. G ingival tissues and inter-proximal embrassures are not covered by the connector.

46. DISADVA N TAGES Patient discomfort . F ood entrapment .

47. Labial Bar Indication: Large inoperable lingual tori. Severe & abrupt lingual undercuts. Lingually inclined lower anterior & premolars. Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

48. Characteristics and location 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.

49. Hinged continuous labial bar Indications: Missing key abutments. Unfavorable tooth contour. Unfavorable soft tissue contours. Teeth with questionable prognosis. Contraindications: Poor oral hygiene. Shallow buccal labial vestibule. High frenal 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

50. Characteristics and location This type of major connector is the modification of linguoplate which is incorporated in the “Swing-lock ” Design consists of labial bar i.e. connected to the major connector by hinge on one end and latch at the other end. 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

51. 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.

52. 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,

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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

56. Functions J oin other units of the prostheses . Transfer functional stresses . Distributes the stresses against components . Distributes forces on ridge and teeth.

57. Form and location Sufficient bulk to be rigid. A xial surface should be located on the embrasure. T hickest towards the lingual surface than contact area . Deepest interdental embrassure blocked . Tapered to the teeth. Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics . 11 th ed , st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

58. W ide 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. “A variation in minor connector design for partial dentures,Radford DR, Walter JD Int J Prosthodont. 1993 Jan-Feb;6(1):50-4.” “Dunny J A, King G E, Minor connector designs for anterior acrylic resin bases: a preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent 1975,34:496-502.”

59. 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. Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

60. Minor connectors that join the clasp assembly to the major connector. 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 . Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics . 11 th ed , st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

61. Should be broad buccolingually but thin mesiodistally. C lasp assembly must be positioned in embrassure . X convex lingual surface of tooth .

62. Minor connectors that join indirect retainers or auxillary rests to major connectors. Arises from the major connector. Form a right angle with major connector. Designed to lie in the embrassure disguise bulk .

63. Minor connector that join denture base to major connector L atticework construction M esh construction Bead ,wire,or nail head minor connectors Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

64. Open latticework construction Consists of 2 struts of metal(12-16guage). O ne buccal other – lingual . Smaller struts connect the two and form the lattice work.

65. 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

66. Mesh construction 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

67. Tissue stops S tability for frame work during transfer and processing. D istortion of framework during acrylic resin processing . Engage buccal and lingual slopes for stability. U sing lattice or mesh. waxed as a projection on framework after casting.

68. 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.

69. Finish lines 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.

70. Internal finish lines 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 Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Rodney D. Phoenix, David R. Cagna , Charles F. DeFreest . Quintessence 3rd ed.

71. External finish lines 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.

72. Minor connector that serve as approach arm for vertical projection or bar-type clasp. 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. Carr A B, Mc Givney G P, Brown D T, Minor connector in McCraken’s Removable partial Prothodontics . 11 th ed , st louis: Mosby; 2008, 35-53

73. 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

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

75. Dunny J A, King G E, Minor connector designs for anterior acrylic resin bases: a preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent 1975,34:496-502. Brown D T, Desjardins R P, Chao EY.Fatigue failure in acrylic resin retaining minor connections. J Prosthet 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 . A variation in minor connector design for partial dentures,Radford DR, Walter JD Int J Prosthodont . 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.

76. 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

77. 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.

78. 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.

79. THANK YOU