ORIGINAL ARTICLE

 

Selection of mandibular major connector based on a conventional impression technique

 

 

Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro^I; Arcelino Farias Neto^II; Brunna Moreira de Farias Pereira^III; Luana Maria Martins de Aquino^II

^IDDS, MS, PhD, Professor, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal (RN), Brazil
^IIDDS, MS, Graduate student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal (RN), Brazil
^IIIDDS, Graduate student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal (RN), Brazil

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

The selection of the mandibular major connector of a removable partial prosthesis depends on the distance between the floor of the mouth and free gingival margin, height of the lingual frenum, presence of mandibular tuberosity, mobility of anterior teeth, major connector used in a previous denture and patient's opinion, slope and retentivity of alveolar bone. However, the dental technician rather than the dentist often selects the major connector in the cast model.
AIM: To determine whether there is a difference between selecting the mandibular major connector clinically or in the cast model as determined by a conventional impression technique using alginate and a universal metallic tray.
METHODS: The sample was composed of 64 patients under treatment at the Department of Dentistry of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte. The distance between the floor of the mouth and the free gingival margin of the remaining elements was measured with a millimeter periodontal probe in the oral cavity and in the cast models.
RESULTS: The mean clinical distance between the free gingival margin and the floor of the mouth was 7.39 ± 2.13 mm, in contrast to the mean distance found in the models (9.03 ± 1.36). The Mann-Whitney test showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the two measures.
CONCLUSIONS: For the adequate selection of the mandibular major connector, the distance between the gingival margin and the floor of the mouth must be measured clinically when using the conventional impression technique.

Keywords: removable partial prosthesis, mandible, planning.

---

 

 

Full text available only in PDF format.

 

 

References

1. Owall B, Budtz-Jörgensen E, Davenport J, Mushimoto E, Palmqvist S, Renner R et al. Removable partial denture design: a need to focus on hygienic principles? Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15: 371-8.         [ Links ]

2. LaVere AM, Krol AJ. Selection of a major connector for the extension-base removable partial denture. J Prosthet Dent. 1973; 30: 102-5.         [ Links ]

3. McCraken WL. Contemporary partial denture designs. J Prosthet Dent. 1958; 8: 71-84.         [ Links ]

4. Todescan R, Silva EEB, Silva OJ. Atlas de prótese parcial removível. São Paulo: Santos; 1998. 345p.         [ Links ]

5. Carr AB, McGivney GP, Brown DT. McCracken's removable partial prosthodontics. Saint Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2005. 458p.         [ Links ]

6. Klieman C, Oliveira W de. Manual de prótese parcial removível. São Paulo: Santos; 1998.         [ Links ]

7. Phoenix RD, Cagna DR, Defreest CF. Prótese parcial removível clínica de Stewart. São Paulo: Quintessence. 2007. 526p.         [ Links ]

8. Addy M, Bates JF. Plaque accumulation following the wearing of different types of removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 1979; 6: 111-7.         [ Links ]

9. Akaltan F, Kaynak D. An evaluation of the effects of two distal extension removable partial denture designs on tooth stabilization and periodontal health. J Oral Rehabil. 2005; 32: 823–9.         [ Links ]

10. Todescan R, Romanelli JH. Por que fracassam os aparelhos parciais removíveis. Rev Assoc Paul Cirurg Dent. 1971; 25: 13-22.         [ Links ]

11. Vieira DF, Todescan R. Estarrecedora situação da prótese parcial removível. Um "alerta!" à profissão odontológica. Rev Assoc Paul Odont. 1972; 26: 299-310.         [ Links ]

12. Bonachela WC, Di Creddo RC. Insucessos das próteses parciais removíveis. RGO. 1990; 38: 262-4.         [ Links ]

13. Duarte ARC, Paiva HJ. Avaliação do nível de conhecimento e conscientização do cirurgião-dentista e do técnico em prótese dental, em relação ao planejamento e a execução de próteses parciais removíveis – Estudo laboratorial. Rev ABO Nac. 2000; 8: 232-7.         [ Links ]

14. Palomo E, Teixeira ML, Stegun RC. Avaliação do comportamento dos cirurgiões-dentistas e protéticos na confecção de estruturas metálicas de próteses parciais removíveis nos laboratórios comerciais da cidade de São Paulo. PCL. 2003, 5: 425-31.         [ Links ]

15. Mattos MGC, Brun CL, Matos RL, Pagnano VO, Ribeiro RF. Perfil dos laboratórios de prótese dental e dos trabalhos de prótese parcial removível. PCL. 2001; 3: 505-10.         [ Links ]

16. Curtis DA, Curtis TA, Wagnild GW, Finzen FC. Incidence of various classes of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67: 664-7.         [ Links ]

17. Owall G, Bieniek KW, Spiekermann H. Removable partial denture production in western Germany. Quintessence Int. 1995; 26: 621-7.         [ Links ]

18. AL-Dwairi ZN. Partial edentulism and removable denture construction: a frequency study in Jordanians. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2006; 14: 13-7.         [ Links ]

19. Zavanelli RA, Hartmann R, Zavanelli AC, Carvalho JRH. Dimensions of major connector of removable partial denture and its relation with gingival tissue. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2006; 35: 135-9.         [ Links ]

20. Cameron SM, Torres GT, Lefler TB, Parker MH. The dimensions of mandibular lingual tissues relative to the placement of a lingual bar major connector. J Prosthodont. 2002; 11: 74-80.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence to:
Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro
Av. Alexandrino de Alencar, 1384/14 Tirol.
CEP 52015-350 - Natal-RN, Brazil
E-mail: adrianadafonte@hotmail.com

Received for publication: October 22, 2009
Accepted: March 29, 2010