Classification of removable partial denture Dr Balendra Pratap singh BDS, MDS, MAMS, FISDR, FPFA, FAAMP, ICMR-IF Assistant professor Department of Prosthodontics
Jan 16, 2016
Classification of removable partial
denture
Classification of removable partial
denture
Dr Balendra Pratap singhBDS, MDS, MAMS, FISDR, FPFA, FAAMP, ICMR-IFAssistant professorDepartment of Prosthodontics
CONTENTSCONTENTS
Need for Classification
Requirements of an acceptable method of classification.
Various types of Classification.
Critical evaluation
Summary
Conclusion
References
NEED FOR CLASSIFICATIONNEED FOR CLASSIFICATION
Ease of communication between dentist and laboratory
personal.
Facilitates case history recording and immediate visualization of
the edentulous arches
Formulate a good treatment plan
Formulate basic design principles which might be applied to
similar situations.
Anticipate the difficulties commonly to occur for that particular
design.
REQUIREMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION:REQUIREMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION:
Allow visualization of the type of partially edentulous arch
Permit immediate differentiation between the tooth-supported and the tooth and tissue supported removable partial denture
Universally accepted
A guide to the type of design to be used
Various Types of ClassificationVarious Types of Classification
Cummer’s Classification. 1920Kennedy’s Classification. 1925Bailyn’s Classification. 1928Neurohr’s Classification. 1939Mauk’s Classification. 1941Wild’s Classification. 1949Godfrey’s Classification. 1951Friedman’s Classification. 1953Beckett’s Classification. 1953Craddock’s Classification. 1954
Austin-Lidge Classification. 1957Skinners Classification. 1957Wilsons Classification.1960Watt’s Classification. 1958Applegate Classification. 1960Avant’s Classification. 1960Swenson’s Classification. 1963Fiset,s Classification. 1973Costa’s Classification. 1974Osborne Classification. 1979ACP Classification. 2002
Kennedy’s classification:Kennedy’s classification:
In 1925 Dr. Edward Kennedy of New York..
This system is based on the relationship of the
edentulous spaces to the abutment teeth. It is
a positional or anatomical classification.
Class I : Bilateral edentulous
areas located posterior to the
remaining natural teeth. Highest
incidence in mandible
Class II : A unilateral edentulous
area located posterior to the
remaining natural teeth
Recognize the Classification?
Class III : A unilateral edentulous
area bounded anteriorly and
posteriorly by remaining teeth
Class IV : An edentulous area
located anterior to the remaining
natural teeth. A single but bilateral
(crossing the midline) edentulous
area
Recognize the classification?
Modifications
They were indicated according to the number of
such areas not by their extent, like Class III mod 2
Advantages:
It permits immediate visualization of the partially edentulous arches.
It permits a logical approach to the problems of design.
It gives a definite treatment plan.
Differentiates between bounded saddle and free end saddle.
Simplicity.
Disadvantages:
Did not explain the length of the edentulous span or
number of missing teeth- only provide number of
modification spaces.
Not enough consideration about the condition of teeth and
the remaining supporting structures.
No distinction between modification spaces which occur in
the anterior segment to those of posterior segment.
Applegate’s classificationApplegate’s classification
Oliver C. Applegate 1960, provide a modification
of Kennedy’s system.
This system is based on the number, location and
condition of abutment teeth or manner of
achieving support.
Class V : Teeth bound the
edentulous area anteriorly and
posteriorly but anterior bounding
tooth is not suitable as
abutment. (not strong enough
for rest, direct retainer) (as the
lateral incisor). It is basically a
class III situation where anterior
abutment cannot be used for
any support.
Class VI : An edentulous situation in
which the boundary teeth are capable
of total support of the required
prosthesis. This situation hardly requires
any tissue support. The abutments are
capable of providing total support.
Additional edentulous areas are
designated by letter A and P.
A : Anterior segment of the arch.
P : Posterior segment of the arch is
bounded by remaining teeth.
Applegate’s rules:
Rule One: Classification should follow
rather than precede extractions that
might alter the original classification.
Rule Two: If the third molar is missing
and not to be replaced, it is not
considered in the classification.
Rule Three: If the third molar is present
and is to be used as an abutment, it is
considered in the classification.
Rule Four: If the second molar is
missing and is not be replaced, it is not
considered in the classification.
Rule Five: The most posterior
edentulous area or areas always
determine the classification.
Rule Six: Edentulous areas
other than those, which determine
the classification, are referred to
as modification spaces and are
designated by their number.
Rule Seven: The extent of the
modification is not considered, only
the number of additional edentulous
areas are considered.
Rule Eight: There can be no
modification areas in class IV.
Because any additional edentulous
space will definitely be posterior to it
and will determine the classification.
ReferencesReferencesApplegate O.C. : Essentials of Removable partial denture prosthesis. 1st edition, 1965.Avant W.E. : The universal classification for removable partial denture situations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1966; 16: 533-540.Davenport J.C., Basker R.M., Heath J.R. and Ralph J.P. : A color atlas of removable partial dentures. 1st edition, 1988.David M. Watt and A. Roy MacGregor: Designing partial dentures. Eugene Costa: A simplified system for identifying partially edentulous dental arches. JPD, 1974, 639-645.Friedman J.: The ABC classification of partial denture segments. JPD, 1953, 517-524.
Kratochvil F.J. : Partial removable prosthodontics. 1st edition,
1988.
McGivney G.P., Carr A.B.: McCracken’s Removable partial
prosthodontics. 10th edition, 2001.
Miller E.L. : System for classifying the partially edentulous arch.
J. Prosthet. Dent. 1970; 24: 25-40.
Skinner C.N. : A classification of removable partial denture
based upon the principles of anatomy and physiology. J.
Prosthet. Dent. 1959; 9: 240-45.
Stewart K.L., Rudd K.D. and Kuebker W.A. : Clinical
Removable partial prosthodontics. 2nd edition, 2001.
Thomas J. McGarry: Classification system for partial
edentulism, Journal of Prosthodontics, 2002 Sep;11(3):181-93.
Q1. If tooth number 47 in below mentioned cast is part of Removable partial denture then this condition of partial edentulous state is classified as?
1. Class 1 2. class 23. Class 1 mod. 1 4 class 2 mod 2
Q2. If tooth number 48 in below mentioned cast is NOT part of Removable partial denture then this condition of partial edentulous state is classified as?
1. Class 1 2. class 23. Class 1 mod. 1 4. class 2 mod
2
Q3. If tooth number 18 in below mentioned cast is part of Removable partial denture then this condition of partial edentulous state is classified as?
1. Class 1 2. class 23. Class 1 mod. 1 4. class 2 mod
2
Q4. If tooth number 28 in below mentioned cast is part of Removable partial denture then this condition of partial edentulous state is classified as?
1. Class 2 mod. 2 2. class 2 mod. 1
3. Class 3 mod. 1 4. class 3 mod. 2
Q5. According to Kennedy, all partially edentulous arches are classified into
1. 6 types
2. 4 types
3. 2 types
4. 3 types
Q6. Keeping in mind that all teeth are healthy, how do classify this?
1. Class 4 2. class 3 mod. 1
3. Class 4 mod. 1 4. class 3 mod. 2
Q7. This RPD is classified as
1. Class 1 mod 1 2. class 2 mod. 2
3. Class 1 mod. 2 4. class 2 mod. 1
Q8. If you need some adjustment in this RPD, which type of RPD you tell to Lab?
1. Class 1 2. class 33. Class 2 4. class 1 mod. 1
Q9. You have found this RPD in clinic, how do you describe it?
1. Class 2 mod 2 2. class 3 mod 2
3. Class 4 mod 3 4. class 1 mod. 2
Q10. This RPD is classified as
1. Class 4 mod 2 2. class 3 mod 2
3. Class 4 mod 1 4. class 2 mod. 2
THANK YOU