The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of Undercuts Relative to Abutment Teeth and Edentulous Area: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

Mohammed Sayed, Ahmad Jameel, Ghadi Duhduh, Tasneem Arishi, Aziza Alqadi, Saurabh Jain

Keywords : Abutment tooth, Direct retainer, Removable partial denture, Retrospective study, Undercut

Citation Information : Sayed M, Jameel A, Duhduh G, Arishi T, Alqadi A, Jain S. Assessment of Undercuts Relative to Abutment Teeth and Edentulous Area: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (1):41-46.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2728

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-01-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: Undercuts on abutment teeth (AT) should be identified and quantified to establish the exact location of the active tip of the retentive arm of the direct retainer. The aim of this study was to locate and evaluate tissue and tooth undercut areas in various Kennedy\'s classes and to assess the correlation, if any, between Kennedy\'s classes and the location and depth of undercuts. Materials and methods: One hundred and seven patients’ casts, with designated AT and edentulous areas (EAs), were surveyed. The undercuts on AT and EAs were measured using undercut gauges. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: The median depth of the undercut was maximum on distal the surface of mandibular AT in a Kennedy\'s class III edentulous situation. No significant difference was found between the amount of tissue undercuts measured on the EA in each of the Kennedy\'s classes in the maxillary and mandibular arches. Conclusion: No significant difference was found between the amounts of undercut measured on AT and the EA in each of the Kennedy\'s classes in the maxillary and mandibular arches. No correlation was found between Kennedy\'s classes and the location and depth of undercuts. Clinical significance: The results of our study reinforce that the diagnosis and selection of ideal abutments should be stressed while planning for a removable dental prosthesis (RDP). In the majority of the cases, the anticipated design of the direct retainer can be applied, though one cannot overlook the need for proper diagnosis and survey.


PDF Share
  1. Oral health needs of the elderly—an international review. Commision of Oral Health. Research and epidemiology report of a working group. Int Dent J 1993;43(4):348–354.
  2. Cummer WE. Possible combinations of teeth present and missing in partial restorations. Oral Health 1920;10:421–430.
  3. Gomes BC, Renner RP. Periodontal considerations of the removable partial overdenture. Dent Clin North Am 1990;34(4):653–668.
  4. Krol AJ. Clasp design for extension-base removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29(4):408–415. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(73)80018-6.
  5. McCracken WL. Partial Denture Construction, 2nd ed., St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company; 1964.
  6. Avant WE. Factors that influence retention of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25(3):265–270. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(71)90187-9.
  7. Partial dentures. New York: J. F. Jelenko & Company, Inc.; 1962.
  8. Planned partial dentures. Hartford: J. M. Ney Company; 1955.
  9. Ana R, Alessandra O, Luana M, et al. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of undercut areas and rest seats of abutment teeth in removable partial denture treatment. J Prosthodont 2011;20(8):639–642. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00766.x.
  10. Stratton RJ, Wiebelt FJ. Retention and retainers. In: An atlas of removable partial denture design. Chicago: Quintessence; 1988. pp. 45–72.
  11. Moore UJ, Cowpe JG, Meechan JG, et al. Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 2001. p. 147.
  12. Qudah S, Harrison A, Huggett R. Soft lining materials in prosthetic dentistry: a review. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3(5):477–483.
  13. Schneider RL. Significance of abutment tooth angle of gingival convergence on removable partial denture retention. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58(2):194–196. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90175-2.
  14. Phoenix RD, Cagna DR, De Freest CF. Stewart's Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics, 4th ed. Quintessence Pub Co; 2008.
  15. Keyf F. Frequency of the various classes of removable partial dentures and selection of major connectors and direct/indirect retainers. Turk J Med Sci 2001;31:445–449.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.