You are on page 1of 6

International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research, 2014, Vol. 2, No.

2, 32-35
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijdsr/2/2/2
Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ijdsr-2-2-2

The Advantages of Partial Dentures Made of Cast


Framework Cr-Co toward those Made of Resin Based
Dentures
Gjergj BOARI1,*, Neada HYSENAJ1, Alesio BOARI2
1
Univeristy Dental Clinic, Tirana, Albania
2
Private Dental Clinic Nobel, Tirana, Albania
*Corresponding author: gjbocari@yahoo.com
Received March 26, 2014; Revised April 12, 2014; Accepted April 13, 2014
Abstract Many investigations have shown that the cooperation of the denture design between the dental clinic and
laboratory is often inadequate, with many dentists leaving it to the technician to decide the denture design. The aim of
this study was to compare the stability of the removable partial dentures, made of cast framework base of Cr-Co toward
those from acrylic resin-base. Through this study, we show the importance of a good planning and design of RDP, the
evaluation of direct retentions, especially those of clasps and precise attachments for their impact on the longevity of the
supporting teeth and tissues in different clinical cases, classified by Kennedy. The removable partial dentures evaluated
in the study are either with or without a cast framework. In this study, are taken into observation 65 prostheses from 53
patients (28 maxillary and 37 mandibular) aged 38-70 years old. We have analyzed the type of clasps used and evaluated
mobility scale and periodontal and clinical conditions of the abutment teeth in each case. After clinical examination we
concluded that the abutment teeth where correct choice of clasp types were applied, had a mobility scale within
physiological parameters and overall better clinical conditions compared to the abutment teeth were different type of
clasps were used.
Keywords: direct retainers, denture design, Kennedy classification
Cite This Article: Gjergj BOARI, Neada HYSENAJ, and Alesio BOARI, The Advantages of Partial Dentures
Made of Cast Framework Cr -Co toward those Made of Resin Based Dentures. International Journal of Dental
Sciences and Research, vol. 2, no. 2 (2014): 32-35. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-2-2-2.
But there are many other removable partial
authors who emphasize the dentures.
importance of the RPD In our study we
1. Introduction design principle that takes evaluated these principles
in consideration plaque in different types of partial
T Nowadays, the scientific research is more focused oncontrol especially for caries dentures and grouped by
the fixed prosthetics and mainly on dental implants.prevention and periodontal the Kennedy classification
Implant supported dentures are becoming popular for health. These principles
of the defects.
prosthetic restorations in partially edentulous patients. Butmake up the hygienic
however, removable partial denture (RPD) is still thedesign principles and are
primary treatment option from the patients view becausecharacterized by simplicity
an implant-supported dentures are relatively expensiveand openness of the 2. Material and
from a financial point of view and require a surgical gingival margins [9] . In Methods
procedure that not in every case can be done, and a longer
general textbooks, these
treatment time compared to treatment with removable 2.1. Subjects
two principles are known
partial denture. As we know, a partial denture is supported
as the fundamentals of
by the abutment teeth and residual ridges which have
In this study, are taken
different support characteristics while being underRPD design [2,4,8,9,10].
into observation 53 patients
pressure. When a force is applied at the base of the saddleAnother factor to take in
it generates rotational movements of the RPD and it can consideration is the type of (34 female and 19 male)
exert harmful forces on the supporting teeth and residualmaterial used in with a total number of 65
ridges. In order to minimize the non physiological forces constructing the RPD. In prostheses divided in 28
and preserve the health of the tissues many authors havegeneral practice we maxillary and 37
been focused on biomechanical principles of removable encounter: mandibular dentures. The
partial dentures design and particularly on the distribution 1. Resin-based age group of the patients is
of the excessive forces to the abutment teeth, but also the removable partial between 38-70 years of
support, stability, and retention of the denture RPD [4,8]. dentures age.
2. Cast-framework
International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research 33

applied clasps type E. The


2.2. Design of Removable Partial indirect retainers help stabilize
Dentures Figure 2. Kennedy the denture and in this case are
Class II defect used the occlusal clasps placed
From the 65 partial dentures, 44 were of cast
on the distal teeth.
framework base of Cr-Co, and 21 were from2.2.3. Kennedy Class III
acrylic resin-base. Most of the extension based Defects
dentures covered the lingual sides of abutment
Unilateral/bilateral
teeth and their adjacent teeth with plates to
minimize denture mobility during function. The posterior edentulous area(s)
methods and materials used depend on the type bounded by remaining teeth.
of the defect. In these cases we have
We have analyzed the type of clasps used and
evaluated mobility scale and clinical conditions
of the abutment teeth in each case. Four different
groups of Kennedy classification, we have used
different type of clasps [1,2,5,6].

2.2.1. Kennedy Class I Defects


Bilateral posterior edentulous areas. The
primary retention is placed on the teeth near the Figure 3. Kennedy
defect. We used clasp type G and the indirect Class III defect
retainer is placed in the frontal teeth at their
2.2.4. Kennedy Class IV
palatial surfaces. The goal is to minimize the
Defects
deviation of the denture base toward the alveolar
ridge mainly while chewing sticky food. Single anterior edentulous
area. As primary retentions are
used clasps type E placed at
the first premolars (distally to
the defect) meanwhile the
indirect retainers are Bonwille
clasp applied ate the molars on
both sides.

Figure 1. Kennedy Class I defect.

2.2.2. Kennedy Class II Defects


Unilateral posterior edentulous area. The
primary retention is placed on the teeth near the
defect using clasp type G, and Bonwille clasps
at the molars of the other part. In this case as
indirect retainer is used a clasp at the first Figure 4. Kennedy
Class IV defect
premolar on the opposite side of the defect.
3. Results based dentures and the other 54
were of cast framework Cr-Co.
Figure 5. Resin-based RPD From the 65 partial dentures Almost 90% of the acrylic resin-
applied, only 11 of them resin based dentures required at least
2 extra appointments for
34 International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research
cannot be obtained The main forces
retouches and after 3 months, 60%[3,7,10]. that the dentures are
of the patients had discomfort and The statistical data submitted are the
mobility problems which requiredregarding the cast chewing forces. But in
our intervention. In one case wasframework RDPs will the planning of a
recorded fracture of the denture. It be published in a partial denture it is
permits immediate visualization offollow-up study after important to consider
the partially edentulous arch andthe recall of all the also the action of
allows easy distinction tooth-patients and thorough horizontal and
supported versus tooth-tissueexamination of the rotational forces. The
supported prostheses. The patientsabutment teeth. vertical forces are well
with cast framework Cr-Co toward Till now, tolerated by the
those with resin based denture had approximately two supporting teeth
these differences: years after completing because the
1. Accurate tissue adaptationthe restorations, no periodontal fibers get
(better retention). significant evidence of into action. It is
problems regarding important that the
2. Easy to clean.
our discussion about construction of the
3. Strong. cast framework RDPs denture has a
4. Heat conductivity are reported. controlled distribution
(physiologic tissue stimulation). of the force along the
On the other hand, the cast axial direction of the
framework based dentures 4. Discussion tooth (made possible
showed overall much better by the supporting arm
stability with no evidence of Before constructing of the clasp). The
fractures, of discomfort after thean RDP, a thorough forces are also
first month. All the modelstudy is needed. This distributed by the
preparations were made using thestudy must include the retention arm of the
dental surveyor. evaluation of the type clasp and the denture
of the defect, body itself over the
evaluation of the alveolar ridge [1,7].
different forces that Horizontal forces
will be applied on the are harmful forces and
denture and the applied on the
defining of the supporting teeth and
retentive elements to the alveolar ridge. To
be used. minimize their effect
is important that the
retentive and the
stabilizing arm of the
clasp to be fitted
correctly in the
Figure 6. Graphite marker appropriate areas on
of the surveyor
the tooth and also is
important to find the
right direction of
insertion of the
denture itself.
Rotational forces may
occur in the absence of
distal teeth, mainly in
Kennedy class I and II
[1,3,8]. These forces
provoke the rotation of
the base of the denture
over the surface of the
edentulous ridge. In
Figure 7. Undercut gauge of this case it is
the surveyor
necessary the use of
The angle formed between the indirect retentions by
maximal tooth convexity and the using supporting arms
cylindrical instrument is called the as far as possible on
angle of gingival convexity. the other side of the
When the convergence angle is axle of the rotation.
less than 10 the clasp retention
Other factors that help minimizeemphasize the resistance in
their effect are: a wide base of the necessity to focus on resin base
denture, smaller denture tooth'sthe long-term effects materials. The
surface, and by taking aof the restorations. A reduced thickens
compressed impression during thefew studies of cast provides more
clinical phase in order to minimizeframework RPDs have sensation and the
the tissue resilience. shown that with a flexibility of the
The elimination of the mesial-good design and metal absorbs the
distal movement is achieved whencareful monitoring of shock exerted by
the denture base has good contactthe patient, the results the chewing
with the proximal surfaces of thecan be predictably forces. The
supporting teeth and the claspssuccessful. patient has ease
include the tooth perimeter by over of use from the
180. In the lower jaw these forces first day and does
are better controlled by including not experience
the mandibular tuberculum at the5. Conclusion difficulties
base of the denture. caused by rigid
Cast framework partial dentures The advantages of base materials.
have demonstrated a relativelycast framework partial 2. Durability. These
short longevity. In many casesdentures made of Cr-
restorations are
there are reports of 50% survivalCo toward the resin
very durable to
rate 10 years after treatmentbased dentures are:
regarding clasp retained removable 1. Patient Comfort. compressive and
partial dentures and 50% survival Partial dentures bending forces
rate after 4 years for resin based constructed with and do not
removable partial dentures without Cr-Co are thin, deteriorate
cast metal frameworks. These thus reducing the chemically when
studies do not give particulars thickness they come in
regarding the contraindications or required for contact
faulty design of the RPDs, but they
International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research 35

[2] Beck retention


with the liquids or bacteria of
er,
removable
and the chemical C. Et
partial
environment of the mouth. al:
dentures
Ev
3. More biocompatible. 1996; 333-
oluti
340.
on
4. Stress-breaking function. of [5] The new Bego Partial
The forces exerted on the Rem denture technique 2002.
edentulous ridge and the ovab [6] Warr J.A.
supporting teeth are le
parti
substantially reduced. al
Numeric
al system
5. Greater longevity. dent of clasp
ure
6. Increased resistance. desi
design J.
Prosth.
7. Enhanced stability. gn. Denth.
J.
8. Better esthetics. Pros
1961-11.
thod [7] Watt, MD;
ont. McGrgor
References 3: AR
Designin

158-
66: g partial
[1] Keraj F - Protezat parciale 1994 dentures.
. Nosby
2008. 1996.
[3] Preci
[8] Graken WL Partial
sion
s denture construction
vera 1995.
nker [9] Zlataric DK,
unge elebiPeruzoviTheA
n in ,effectValentiM.of-
der removable partial
zahn dentures on periodontal
arztli health of abutment and
chen non-abutment teeth. J
Prot Periodontol 2002; 73:
hetik 137-144.
275-
299-
[10] Alfonco C.
1983 Toothaker;
. R. W.
Wright et.
[4] Reag al.
an S. Techniqu
Et al e to create
appropriat
Pr e tooth
actic contours
al, for
aest
removable
hetic
partial
opti
dentures.
ons
1999; 8:
for
273-275.