The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2020 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Unique, Cost-effective and Retentive Removable Prosthesis to Rehabilitate Long Span Kennedy's Class I Edentulism with Custom Attachment System: A Case Report

Abhijit P Patil, Anuradha V Pawar, Raghunath Patil, Anandkumar G Patil, Prashant Karni, Sayali Mardolkar

Keywords : Cantilever fixed partial dentures, Custom attachment, Die pins and sleeves, Distal extension removable partial denture, Kennedy\'s class I edentulism

Citation Information : Patil AP, Pawar AV, Patil R, Patil AG, Karni P, Mardolkar S. Unique, Cost-effective and Retentive Removable Prosthesis to Rehabilitate Long Span Kennedy's Class I Edentulism with Custom Attachment System: A Case Report. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (2):215-218.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2749

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2020

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


Abstract

Aim: This case report describes about a distinctive custom-made attachment on the abutment teeth to improve the retention and stability of the removable partial denture (RPD). It also throws light on the cost-effective method for altering the abutment teeth with the aid of the crowns and custom-made attachments. Background: Achieving retention in Kennedy\'s class I bilateral edentulism usually affects the abutment teeth\'s periodontal health and eventually the retention is compromised. Distal extension edentulism also affects patient\'s masticatory efficiency. The rehabilitation of a patient with the long span Kennedy\'s class I condition complicates the problem because of the unavailability of enough abutments to support the prosthesis. Conventional removable prosthesis with clasps and cantilever fixed partial prosthesis are not advisable in this situation for the same reason. Case description: A case with Kennedy\'s class I modification 1 partially edentulous arch with 1st and 2nd molars missing along with central incisors was rehabilitated with an inexpensive custom attachment using die pin and sleeve for giving a fixed prosthesis on abutment teeth and removable prosthesis with missing teeth. Conclusion: This technique has advantages of retention better than conventional RPDs, protection of abutment health by restoring it with crown, easy to place and remove and very cost-effective. Clinical significance: The entire technique demands less skill compared to semi precision and precision attachments.


PDF Share
  1. Madhankumar S, Mohamed K, Natarajan S, et al. Prevalence of partial edentulousness among the patients reporting to the Department of Prosthodontics Sri Ramachandra University Chennai, India: an epidemiological study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7(Suppl 2): S643–S647. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.163580.
  2. McGarry TJ, Nimmo A, Skiba JF, et al. Classification system for partial edentulism. J Prosthodont 2002;11(3):181–193. DOI: 10.1053/jopr.2002.126094.
  3. Bharathi M, Babu KR, Reddy G, et al. Partial Edentulism based on Kennedy's classification: an epidemiological study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(2):229–231. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1520.
  4. Basnyat KC, Sapkota B, Shrestha S. Epidemiological survey on Edentulousness in elderly nepalese population. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2014;12(48):259–263. DOI: 10.3126/kumj. v12i4.13731.
  5. Owall B, Kayser AF, Carlsson GE, 2nd ed. Prosthodontics-Principles and Management Strategies; 2004.
  6. Wöstmann B, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Jepson N, et al. Indications for removable partial dentures: a literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18(2):139–145.
  7. Walmsley AD. Acrylic partial dentures. Dent Update 2003;30(8): 424–429. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2003.30.8.424.
  8. Johnson DL. Retention for a removable partial denture. J Prosthodont 1992;1(1):11–17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.1992.tb00420.x.
  9. Lammie GA, Laird WR, 5th ed. Osborn and lammies partial dentures. Oxford, London, Edinburgh: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1986. pp. 57–285.
  10. Tebrock OC, Rohen RM, Fenster RK, et al. The effect of various clasping systems on the mobility of abutment teeth for distal-extension removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41(5):511–516. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90082-9.
  11. Mahmood WA, Salim SA, Saharudin S. The status of the abutment teeth in distal extension removable partial dentures. Malays Dent J 2009;30(1):13–19.
  12. Carlsson GE, Hedegard B, Koivumaa KK. Studies in partial dental prosthesis. IV. Final results of a 4-year longitudinal investigation of dentogingivally supported partial dentures. Acta Odontol Scand 1965;23(5):443–472. DOI: 10.3109/00016356509021764.
  13. Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson CO. Caries, periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients with removable partial dentures: a ten-year longitudinal study. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48(5):506–514. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90352-3.
  14. Praveen M, Sekar AC, Saxena A, et al. A new approach for management of Kennedy's class I condition using dental implants: a case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12(4):256–259. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0136-7.
  15. Starr NL. The distal extension case: an alternative restorative design for implant prosthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001;21(1):61–67.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.