Major Connectors

1
 Contents
Introduction
Major connectors
Role of major connectors
Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Recent advances
Conclusion
References

2
 Introduction
Name of components descriptive of
function
Major
connectors

Denture Minor
base connector

Components

Indirect
Rests
retainer

Direct
retainer

3
 Major connectors
A major connector joins the components of
the removable partial denture from one side of
the arch to the opposite side

4
 Role of major connectors

Be rigid
Protect the associated soft tissue
Provide means for obtaining indirect
retention
Provide a means of placement of denture
base
Promote patient comfort
Self cleansing

5
 Rigidity : Protect soft tissue:

Permits broad distribution of Maxillary connector 6mm

forces from marginal gingiva

Mandibular connector
3mm from marginal gingiva

6
 Provide means of Promote patient
indirect retention: comfort:

By use of indirect retainers, Edges should be contoured

rotation around the fulcrum
line can be prevented

7
Major connector is based on the
principle of leverage

It will limit movement possibilities by acting

as a counter-acting lever

CROSS-ARCH STABILITY

8
 Major
connector
s

a
ax

r bul
i
y llar

di
an
m
9
Requirements of maxillary major
connectors
Borders 6mm from gingival margins
Anterior border should blend with the palatal
anatomy
The borders of the major connector should be
parallel to the gingival margin
Borders should cross the margins at right
angles
Palatal strap 8mm wide
The borders of the major connector
should be rounded to avoid discomfort
to the tongue
10
 Thickness of the plate should be uniform
Intaglio surface should not be highly
polished
The anterior border of the maxillary major
connector should end in the valley of the
rugae and should be designed never to
end at the crest of the rugae

11
 Types of Maxillary major
connectors

Palatal bar
6 types of Palatal strap
maxillary Antero-posterior palatal bar
major Horse-shoe shaped
connector Antero-posterior palatal
strap
s Complete palate

12
Palatal bar

13
 Narrow, half oval
Thickest point at the centre
Gentle curved and should not form an
angle

Indications
class III (short span)
application

14
Advantage/Disadvantage

*Bulky causes
*Palatal bar has few discomfort to the
advantages and patient
should be avoided
*Narrow antero-
posterior width
*poor bony support
from palate

15
Palatal strap

16
 Most versatile
Band of metal with a thin cross-sectional
dimension
A-P dimension should not be less than
8mm

17
 Width should be increased with the length
of the edentulous span
Indication
Kennedys class II

18
Advantage/Disadvantage

*Increased resistance *Excessive palatal

to bending and coverage
twisting forces * Anterior border
*can be kept thin should be positioned
*little interference with posterior to rugae
normal tongue action * Prone to papillary
*increased tissue hyperplasia
coverage

19
 Palatal Plate type major connector

Also called anatomic replica major

connector
Thin broad contoured palatal coverage.
It is broader than a palatal strap
Indications
-class 1 with little vertical ridge resorption
-cases of V or U shaped palate

20
Advantages
-intimate contact over a large surface
area, providing good retention due to
the presence of interfacial surface
tension
-very natural feel due to thin metal
Disadvantages
-can cause papillary hyperplasia
21
Antero-posterior palatal bar

22
Posterior Palatal bar + anterior
palatal strap
2 bars joined by a flat longitudinal
element

23
Advantage/Disadvantage

*Rigid *Uncomfortable
*Minimises soft tissue *Bulky
coverage *Derives little support
*Provides exceptional from bony tissue
resistance to *Contraindication
deformation reduced periodontal
support

24
Indications
-anterior and posterior abutment teeth
are widely separated
-inoperable tori
-patients who want to avoid complete
coverage

25
Horse shoe connector

26
Consists of a thin band of metal
Lingual surface of remaining teeth to
palatal tissue 6-8 mm
Should be symmetrical equal height
on both sides

27
Advantage/Disadvantage

*Strong connector Tendency to deform

*Derives some Does not provide
vertical support from cross-arch
tissues of hard palate stabilisation
*Designed to avoid Should be considered
bony prominences only if more rigid
connectors cannot be
used

28
Horse shoe major connector has a tendency to
Flex or deform. Hence it is not a good connector
When cross arch stabilization in required.

29
Antero-posterior palatal strap

30
Maximum usage
Each strap 8mm width, thin cross-
section
Borders 6mm from gingival margin
Posterior strap should not contact
soft palate

31
Advantage/Disadvantage

*Derives good +Extensive length

support from hard of borders may
tissues cause irritation to
*L-beam effect the tongue
increases
resistance to
flexure

32
Complete palate

33
Provides ultimate rigidity and support
Maximum tissue coverage
Must be kept 6mm away from
gingival margins
Mechanical seal presence of bead
line along posterior border

34
ADVANTAGES
All posterior teeth to be replaced
Remaining teeth are periodontally
compromised
Provides vertical support
Permits force distribution to the teeth as
well as the tissues
Comfortable
Coverage of multiple planes L beam
effect 35
DISADVANTAGES
Adverse soft tissue reaction may occur
soft tissue hyperplasia poor oral
hygiene and prolonged periods of
denture wearing

36
 Indications
Case Type of major connector

Weak periodontal support Wide palatal strap or complete

palate

Adequate periodontal support Palatal strap or A-P palatal strap

Long-span distal extension A-P palatal strap or complete

palate

Anterior teeth to be replaced A-P palatal strap, complete palate

or horseshoe major connector

Presence of torus A-P palatal strap, A-P palatal bar,

horse shoe connector

37
 Design of maxillary major
connectors
:
Outline Outline Selection
Outline of
primary non of
connector Unificatio
stress bearing connector
areas n
bearing areas type
areas

38
 Requirements of mandibular
major connectors

Rigid without being bulky

Must not impinge on the movable
floor of the mouth
Relief required between the rigid
metal connector and underlying
tissues

39
 Contents
Introduction
Major connectors
Role of major connectors
Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Recent advances
Conclusion
References

40
Types of mandibular major
connectors

41
Lingual bar

42
Most frequently used
Cross-section half pear shaped
Broadest portion near the floor of the
mouth
8mm space between gingival margin
and floor of the mouth
Presence of mandibular tori
surgical removal
43
44
Lingual plate

45
Half pear shaped this solid piece of
metal extending from superior border
to lingual surfaces of teeth
Lingual border as low as possible -
avoid interferences with functional
movements
Plate must completely close the
interproximal surfaces

46
 Ledging occurs when metal
Superior border is knife-edged to
margins are thick or linear
and provides unnatural
avoid ledging contours
Open embrasures or widely spaced
teeth modification step back
Metal should cross
Step gingival
back modification
requires the superior border
margins
at right angles
of the plate to cover the
cingulum of the individual
To ensure rigiditytooth inferior border
should be made thicker
47
48
Double lingual bar

49
Lingual bar + lingual plate
Upper and lower borders are similar
to lingual plate
No continuous metal sheet
Upper bar half oval cross-section
(2-3 mm height and 1mm thickness)
Two bars should be connected by
rigid minor connectors
50
Rests should be placed at each end
of the bar no further posterior than
1st premolar

51
52
Labial bar

53
Runs across mucosa on facial
surface
Half pear shaped
Longer than lingual bar
Height and thickness must be greater
Successful treatment very limited

54
SWING LOCK MODIFICATION
Labial component does not serve as
major connector
Hinge at one end and locking device on
the other
Permits RPD to reach inaccessible
undercuts

55
56
 Indications

Tooth supported RPD Lingual bar

Insufficient room between floor of Lingual plate
mouth and gingival margins
Anterior teeth with reduced Lingual plate
periodontal support
Anterior teeth with reduced Double lingual bar
periodontal support and large
interproximal spaces
Replacement of all mandibular Lingual plate
posteriors

57
 Design of mandibular major
connectors

I outline basal seat area on the

diagnostic cast
II outline inferior border of major
connnector
III outline superior border of Major
connector
IV unification

58
59
 Contents
Introduction
Major connectors
Role of major connectors
Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Acrylic dentures
Recent advances
Conclusion
References
60
 Acrylic dentures

Most commonly used

Indicated when the life of the denture
is expected to be less
Or if relining may be necessary
Weaker and less rigid than the metal
alloys - more likely to flex or fracture
during function.

Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. 61

Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
INDICATIONS
During the phase or rapid bone
resorption after tooth loss
When remaining teeth have poor
prognosis, and an extraction and
replacement is expected
Interim denture
In growing individuals

Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. 62

Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
 Design for the replacement of one or two
anterior teeth in young
people is the 'spoon' denture. It reduces
gingival margin coverage to a
minimum, but a potential hazard is the
risk of inhalation or ingestion.

A more stable and therefore more

widely applicable design is the
modified spoon denture. Here one
has the choice of relying on frictional
contact between the connector and
the palatal surfaces of some of the
posterior teeth, or of adding wrought
wire clasps.
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. 63
Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
 Another acceptable design is the 'Every'
denture which can be used for
restoring multiple bounded edentulous
areas in the maxillary jaw.

Acrylic RPDs in the mandible often lack tooth-support making

tissue damage highly probable. Such RPDs should therefore
be avoided whenever possible.
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P. Ralph, PO. 64
Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
 Contents
Introduction
Major connectors
Role of major connectors
Types of maxillary major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Types of Mandibular major connectors
Review of indications
Steps in Designing
Acrylic dentures
Recent advances
Conclusion
References
65
 Recent advances

Recent work has shown that

CAD/CAM/RP technologies can be
successfully applied to the fabrication
of RPD alloy frameworks

66
67
RPD framework using PEEK

68
To conclude.

69
 Bibliography

McCrackens removable partial prosthodontics

12th edition
Stewarts removable partial prosthodontics 4th
edition
Partial dentures John osborne and George
Lammie 4th edition
Connectors -J. C. Davenport, R.M.Basker, J. R. Heath, J. P.
Ralph, PO. Glantz, and P. Hammond (BDJ)
Use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a
removable partial denture framework (R. J. Williams, BA,
PhD,a Richard Bibb, BSc, PhD,b Dominic Eggbeer, BSc,c and John Collis,
BDS) (JPD)

70
Thank
you!!

71