MAXILLARY

MAJOR CONNECTORS

UTTAM S. SHETTY
 Contents

$ INTRODUCTION

$ DEFINITION

3
$
TYPES OF MAJOR CONNECTOR

4
$
Functions of Major Connector

3
$
Requirements of Major Connector

4
$ Location
 Contents

$ Special Requirements of Maxillary connector

$ Types of Maxillary Major Connector

3
$ Designing of Maxillary Major Connector

4
$ Non Rigid Major Connectors

3
$ Review Of Literature

4
$ Conclusion
Introduction
 DEFINITION:

GPT-6
 Types of major connectors

Maxillary major connector

Based on the
●

●
●
Mandibular major
site: connector

●
Rigid major connectors
Based on rigidity ●
Non rigid major
connectors
Function of major connector

 Unification

Provides cross arch stability to help resist

displacement by functional stress

Help to distribute the stresses, particularly the

horizontal forces which are more damaging than the
vertical ones
 IDEAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
MAJOR CONNECTOR

1. Rigid.

2. Should not impinge on free gingival margin and other

soft tissues.
3.

4.Should not allow food lodgment beneath it.

5. Vertical support

6. Indirect retention
7.Should enable to place the denture bases where
required.
    
8. Should be comfortable to the patient.
   
9.Should be made with a material, which is
biocompatible.

10
 Location :

Should be free of movable tissues

Impingement of gingival tissues is avoided

Bony and soft tissue prominences should

be avoided during placement and removal
Relief should be provided beneath a
major connector to prevent its settling
into areas of possible interference

Major connectors should be located and

relieved to prevent impingement of tissue
because the distal extension dentures
rotates in function
Maxillary major connector.
 Special Structural Requirements

 The borders should be as innocuous to the tongue as

possible……

 The beading is provided for special seal and the

beading should be of about 0.5 mm in both width and
depth……

 The tissue side of the maxillary major connector is not

highly polished, to preserve the intimate tissue contact,
which aids in retention and stability (Electro polishing is
sufficient).
 TYPES OF MAXILLARY MAJOR
CONNECTORS

A SINGLE PALATAL BAR

B SINGLE PALATAL STRAP

C U-SHAPED PALATAL CONNECTOR

D ANTERIOR-POSTERIOR PALATAL BAR

 TYPES OF MAXILLARY MAJOR
CONNECTORS

E ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR

PALATAL STRAP

F PALATAL PLATE-TYPE CONNECTOR

 SINGLE PALATAL BAR

 A palatal connector component of less than 8 mm in

width is referred to as a bar.
 It is narrow half–oval with its thickest point at the
centre……
 INDICATION
 Limited to replacing one or two teeth………
 Interim partial denture until a more definitive
treatment can be considered.

 CONTRAINDICATION
 In distal extension situation
 when anterior teeth are to be replaced
DISADVANTAGES

 Most difficult for the patient to adjust.

 Due to its narrow anterior-posterior width it derives
little vertical support from the bony palate and must be
therefore supported positively by rests on the
remaining natural teeth.
 G. Wagner, F.C. Traweek (1982) compared the major
connectors for rpd.

 They compared the subjective patient reactions to

three maxillary and two mandibular major connector
designs.

 They concluded that most preferred major connector

was the single palatal bar and the mandibular lingual
bar.
 SINGLE PALATAL STRAP

It consists of a wide thin band of metal that crosses the

palate in an unobtrusive manner………
INDICATIONS
In Kennedy’s Class III mod 1 situations
Unilateral distal extension {Kennedy class II}

CONTRAINDICATION
Anterior replacements with distal extension bases.

WAXING SPECIFICATION
Anatomic replica pattern equivalant to 22-24 gauge wax,
depending on arch width.
ADVANTAGES
Because the palatal strap is located in three planes it
offers great resistance to bending and twisting forces.
Distribution of stress over a broad area.
Retention of the partial denture is enhanced……
DISADVANTAGES
The patient may complain of excessive palatal
coverage.
Another possible disadvantage is an adverse soft
tissue reaction in the form of papillary hyperplasia
 U-SHAPED PALATAL CONNECTOR
(Horseshoe shaped connector)

 It consists of thin band of metal running along

Lingual surface of remaining teeth and extending
onto the palatal tissues for 6-8mm.
INDICATIONS
 Large inoperable tori, prominent medial suture.

 Multiple anterior teeth are to be replaced.

 Patients with exaggerated gag reflex.
 Periodontally weakened anterior teeth
Waxing details:
 22-24 gauge sheet wax, anatomic replica pattern.
DISADVANTAGES

Its lack of rigidity allows lateral flexure under occlusal

force induce torque or direct lateral force to abutment
teeth

Fails to provide good support characteristics and may

permit impingement of underlying tissue when subjected
to occlusal loading
 A.J. Beaumont (2002) overviewed the esthetics with
rpd.

 Observed that provision for esthetic rpd maybe made with
selection of appropriate major connector.

 U- shaped palatal connector is an esthetic maxillary major

connector which maybe applied when several anterior teeth
are to be replaced

Quintessence Int 2002;33:747-755

4.ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR PALATAL BAR-TYPE
CONNECTORS

 The two bars are joined by flat longitudinal elements

on each side of the lateral slopes of the palate thus
providing 2 bars at different planes “L beam effect”.
INDICATIONS
 Anterior and posterior abutments are widely separated.
 Presence of torus palatinus.
 Patient who strongly objects to the greater bulk or area
coverage of the full palatal connector.
CONTRAINDICATIONS
 In reduced periodontal support of the remaining teeth
Waxing specifications:
 Anterior bar by 24 to 26 gauge wax.
 posterior bar half oval shaped 22 to 26 gauge wax.
ADVANTAGES
 The main advantage is its rigidity.
 Minimizes the soft tissue coverage, yet provides
exceptional resistance to deformation .

DISADVANTAGES
 It is frequently uncomfortable.
 Derive very little support from the palate.
 Anterior bar - May interfere with speech
Z. Ben- ur et al (1999) evaluated the stiffness of different
designs and cross sections of maxillary and mandibular major
connector for rpd.

5 maxillary and 5 mandibular casted cr- co alloy was chosen

Points m and p in position of first premolar and second

premolar were placed 20 mm apart.

Vertical and horizontal forces were applied to each point

while opposite was gripped in an instron machine,

.
 The stiffest was a-p palatal bar

Most flexible was the u- shaped

design.
5.ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR PALATAL
STRAP-TYPE CONNECTOR
(Closed Horseshoe Connector)

 Posterior palatal connectors should be located as far

posteriorly as possible to avoid interference with the tongue……..
INDICATIONS
• Kennedy’s Class I, II ,Class II mod I, IV arches.
•In case of inoperable tori.
•Multiple teeth missing
CONTRAINDICATION
• Inoperable maxillary torus extending posterior to the
soft palate.

WAXING SPECIFICATION
1. Anatomic replica pattern or matte surface forms of
22 gauge thickness.
2.A strap of 22 gauge thickness , 8-10mm wide
ADVANTAGES
 Rigid palatal major connector
 The corrugated contour of the metal over the rugae
adds strength to the connector.
 “L beam effect” thereby increasing the resistance to
flex.
DISADVANTAGES
 Interference with phonetics may occur in some
patients.
 The extensive length of borders may cause discomfort
to the tongue
 6.PALATAL PLATE-TYPE CONNECTOR

 The full palate connector should be thin, with the natural

anatomy of the palate reproduced
INDICATIONS
Class I and Class II arches
When remaining teeth are periodontally compromised.
In individuals with a full complement of mandibular teeth
When flat or flabby ridges or a shallow vault is present.
Cleft palate patients

CONTRAINDICATION
Presence of tori which cannot be surgically removed
ADVANTAGES
 Uniform thickness and the thermal conductivity of the metal
are readily acceptable to the tongue and underlying tissues
 The corrugation of the anatomic replica adds strength to the
casting.
 Provide the prosthesis with greater retention
DISADVANTAGES
 Adverse soft tissue reaction in the form of inflammation or
hyperplasia may occur
 Problems with phonetics may occasionally occur
Anatomic replica pattern or matte surface forms of 22 – 24
gauge thickness
 Beading of Maxillary Cast
The term used to denote the scribing of shallow groove on
the maxillary master cast outlining the palatal major
connector exclusive of rugae area.
Purposes :
 To transfer major connector design to the investment
cast.
 To provide a visible finishing line for the casting.
 To endure intimate tissue contact of major connector
with selected palatal tissues
 DESIGNING OF MAXILLARY MAJOR
CONNECTORS

 In 1953, Blatterfein.

 His method involves five basic steps and is

certainly applicable to most maxillary removable
partial denture situations
 STEP 1.Outline of primary bearing areas:
STEP 2. Outline of non-bearing
areas:
 STEP 3: Outline Of Connector areas.

STEP 4: Selection Of Connector Type

STEP 5: Unification.
Non rigid major connector
Advantages:

 By this independent movement most of the occlusal

forces directed towards the stronger residual ridge
and very less forces are directed towards the
periodontally weak abutment teeth .
 Bernard Levin has given the rules for selecting the rigid or non
rigid type of major connectors.
 They are:

Rule 1: If the teeth are periodontally sound and the

residual ridge is poor “Rigid Connector’s” are indicated.

Rule 2: If the teeth are periodontally weak and the residual ridge
is strong “Non rigid” (stress breakers type) connector’s.

DCNA, 23, 1979

 Maxillary non rigid major connector

A stress breaker for maxillary partial denture is

often not necessary,

the soft tissues of the ridge and palate nearly always

have superior load –bearing characteristics .

However there are situations in which a stress

breaker can be advantageous.
Types of maxillary non rigid connectors

1.Soldered split palatal connector

2.Split palatal plate:
-
- The cut is made by a sharp scalpel blade at the
junction of the edentulous area and the tooth
supported area

- During loading the denture base will move vertically

with equal force on the soft tissues
Philip V. Reitz et al.

 Conducted a photoelastic analysis of the stress

distribution in the split framework and reported that

Split framework - lower stess –root surface of

abutment teeth
high stress- denture bearing area

Rigid major connectors - the high stresses were

observed around the root surfaces.

- J Prosthet Dent1984;51:19
 Review of literature
 Yuuji Sato et al. (IJP 1990) reported that the
flexural rigidity of the major connectors can be
obtained by formula:
 
 Flexural Rigidity Of Major Connector= EWT3 /12

 They concluded that for Co-Cr palatal Bar Minimum

thickness = 1mm, minimum width=10mm, and
also provided the thickness for various widths of
major connectors.

w 5 7 10 12 20
T 1.25 1.12 1 0.93 0.79
 K.L green, S.O. hondrum (2003) evaluated the effect
of design modifications on torsional and compressive
rigidity of u- shaped palatal connectors.

 The aim was to determine the effects of changing

width thickness and shape, on rigidity of u- shaped
maxillary major connector.

J Prosthet Dent2003;89:400-7
 Thick groups were more rigid than other frameworks
when torsional load was applied a-p strap was more
rigid on compression.

 Doubling the thickness of anterior strap of u- shaped

maxillary major connector improved rigidity of
framework to torsional loads.
CONCLUSION

Although there are many variations in the palatal

major connectors, a through comprehension of all
factors influencing their design will lead to the best
design for each patient
References
 McCracken’s Removable Partial Prosthodontics-11th
Edition- A.B.Carr, G.P.McGivney , D.T.Brown.

 Stewart - Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics,

2nd Edition.
 D.M.Watt,A.R.MacGregor- Designing partial
dentures

 Bernard Levin – Stress breakers :A practical

approach: -DCNA, 1979;77

 A.G.Wagner, F.C.Traweek – Comparision of major

connector for removable partial denture
- J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:242
 P.V.Reitz, J.L.Sanders- A photoelastic study of a
split palatal major connector
- J Prosthet Dent1984;51:19

 Yuuji et al: Trial pattern for selection of Major

Connectors
–IJP 1990; :175-80.
 Z. Ben- Ur , E.Mijiritsky , C.Gorfil, T.Brosh
- Stiffness of different designs and cross-sections of
maxillary and mandibular major connectors of
removable partial dentures
- J Prosthet Dent1999;81:526
 Thank you
Thank you