Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1999 26; 165–169
Further aspects of design for distal extension removable
partial dentures based on the Kennedy classification
Z. BEN-UR, A. SHIFMAN, I. AVIV & C. GORFIL*
Restorative Dentistry, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
SUMMARY A supplement to the Kennedy classifica-
tion of partially edentulous arches for restoration
with removable partial dentures has been sug-
gested. Factors affecting denture design relating to
the position of the abutment teeth, the symmetry
of the edentulous distal extensions, the arch form
and the cross-sectional shape of the residual ridges
Introduction
Many investigators have attempted to classify the par-
tially edentulous arch. Bailyn (1928) and Beckett
(1953) have suggested a classification based on
whether the support of the removable partial denture
(RPD) is tooth-borne, tissue-borne, or a combination of
the two. Mauk (1942) has suggested that the number,
length and position of the edentulous spaces should
form the basis for classification. Godfrey (1951) also
related to the length and location of the edentulous
spaces to be restored, while Costa (1974) and Avant
(1966) have suggested an improved classification based
on a description of the edentulous arch. According to
Miller (1970), the most popular classification is that
proposed by Kennedy (1923). Many other classifica-
tions have resulted from the Kennedy classification
(Friedman, 1953; Swenson & Terkla, 1955; Skinner,
1959; Applegate, 1960, 1965), which is based on the
frequency of occurrence of each category of edentulous
space, alluding to the generalized design of the restora-
tion. The partially edentulous arches are divided into
four broad categories with possible subdivisions (mod-
ifications) for variations within each category. This
classification enhances communication between both
dentists and dental technicians because of its simplicity.
© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd
Department of Oral Rehabilitation and *Department of
have been discussed and classified. An under-
standing of the movement of the denture bases in
relation to the influence of these factors makes for
a rational approach to removable partial denture
design and the treatment of complications ob-
served clinically in removable partial denture
wearers.
However, Kennedy disregarded the condition of the
residual ridges and the quality of the remaining teeth
in terms of alveolar bone level, clinical crown integrity
and their axial position in the dental arch. Further-
more, the state of the opposing dental arch was not
considered in his classification.
The classification proposed in the present article is
valid for mandibular situations, especially when op-
posed by a complete maxillary dentition, where oc-
clusal forces are considered to be maximal. The
following parameters are viewed as an addition to the
Kennedy classification when designing distal extension
RPDs (Class I and II): position of the distal abutment in
the arch and symmetry of the bilateral distal extension,
arch form, square or tapered, and cross-sectional shape
of the edentulous ridge.
Position of the distal abutment in the
arch
The degree of displacibility between the relatively im-
movable abutment tooth and the resilient edentulous
residual alveolar ridge differ (Picton, 1978). In the
distal extension RPD, functional pressure applied to the
denture base causes its movement towards the tissue.
This movement is the result of a rotation movement of
165
166 Z . B E N - U R et al.
the RPD bases around an axis connecting the most
distal abutment teeth. The rotation can also cause
torquing forces to act on the clasped abutment teeth.
Stress-releasing clasp designs overcome these effects,
which are usually more pronounced in the mandible,
since maxillary RPDs have considerably greater support
from the hard palate.
Four designs of clasp assembly that function with a
torque-release effect are described in the literature:
(i) RPI clasp (mesial rest, proximal plate, I-bar) (Kra-
tochvil, 1963; Krol, 1973).
(ii) RPA clasp (mesial rest, proximal plate, Akers
clasp) (Eliason, 1983).
(iii) RPL clasp (mesial rest, proximal plate, L-bar)
(Ben-Ur, Aviv & Cardash, 1988).
(iv) Equipoise, back action type clasp (Goodman &
Goodman, 1963).
These clasp systems when loaded are applied to the
abutment teeth adjacent to the distal extension base
and are designed to have a stress-releasing effect. This
allows rotation of the RPD bases tissuewards without
torquing the clasped abutment teeth. To achieve this
goal, the axis of rotation is designed to pass through
the mesial rest away from the denture base, with the
retentive arm nearest to the denture base. This creates
a desirable releasing class II lever effect, favouring the
abutment teeth. The RPI clasp system is widely ac-
cepted (Kratochvil, 1963; Krol, 1973; Demer, 1976;
Benson & Spolsky, 1979; Berg, 1984). In these designs,
the retentive tip of the I-bar should be placed on or just
slightly anterior to the greatest buccolingual curvature
of the abutment tooth just below the undercut. Tissue-
© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 26; 165–169
Fig. 1. Diagrams showing supplemental aspects
to be considered with the Kennedy classification
for distal extension cases. (i) Dotted lines denote
axis of rotation for each situation; (ii) Arrows
indicate horizontal components of the vertical
load; (iii) Cross-sectional representation of the
residual ridges is indicated in the relevant
regions.
ward functional movement of the denture base creates
a class II lever effect that disengages the retainer tip
from the undercut. This is true for the symmetrical
distal extension, where the axis of rotation between
the the most distally placed rests is perpendicular to the
sagittal plane (Fig. 1, Kennedy Class I, diagrams 1 & 2).
Asymmetry of the arch
In the asymmetrical Kennedy Class I situation (Fig. 1,
diagrams 3 & 4), a shifting of the axis of rotation occurs
distally on the shorter distal extension side, (Aviv,
Ben-Ur & Cardash, 1988). To maintain a favourable
stress-releasing Class II lever action, the retentive clasp
tip should be designed to be positioned distal to the
shifted axis of rotation. The RPI clasp with a distally
placed I-bar, the RPL clasp and the back action
Equipoise clasp are suggested in these situations (Figs.
2–4).
Arch form
Arch form, classified as ovoid, square and tapered
(Ellinger et al., 1985), may also be a factor in the
designing of the RPD. Ovoid and square distal-exten-
sion base forms share identical features and therefore
both will be considered under the square form.
The rotational (arc) movement of the denture base is
related to the location of the distal abutment teeth and
the residual arch morphology (tapered, square and
ovoid). Adaptation of the design is necessary to over-
come difficulties presented by certain square and ta-
pered arch forms. When a distal extension RPD is
 A S P E C T S F O R K E N N E D Y C L A S S I A N D II D E N T U R E S 167

(ii) With a symmetrical tapered arch, the axis of rota-

Fig. 2. RPI clasp with the I-bar distal to the axis of rotation.
F= Shifted axis of rotation.
(iii) With the asymmetrical square arch, the axis of
designed for a square arch, the following situations
may arise due to different arch configurations:
(i) With a symmetrical square (Kennedy Class I)
where the arc of rotation of the denture base is at
right angles to the longitudinal axis of the residual
ridge, the arc movement of the denture base is
parallel to the residual ridge and maximum sup-
port is achieved (Fig. 1, Class I,1).
(iv) With the asymmetrical tapered arch, the axis
(v) With Kennedy Class II square arch situations, the
Fig. 3. RPL clasp designed to be placed distal to the axis of
rotation.
tion of the denture base is at an obtuse angle to
the longitudinal axis of the residual ridge, and a
nonparallel arc movement of the denture base to
the residual ridge occurs. This results in a decrease
in denture base support and the occlusal forces are
horizontally and lingually directed. This unfa-
vourable force may be responsible for the appear-
ance of pressure spots and discomfort in the
lingual area (Fig. 1, Class I, 2). It is often advisable
in these situations to surgically reduce a sharp and
prominent mylohyoid ridge (Penhalt, Roden &
Esterman, 1985), or to shorten the postmylohyoid
flange. It is also recommended to relieve the lin-
gual flange area in these cases with the aid of a
pressure indicator paste. Use of a permanent soft
liner (Kawano et al., 1994) is rarely indicated for
this purpose.
rotation of the denture base on both distal exten-
sions is at an acute angle to the longitudinal axis
of the residual ridge, and nonparallel arc move-
ment of the denture base to the residual ridge
occurs. The resultant forces are directed onto the
lingual side of the shorter distal extension saddle
causing pressure on this area. On the longer side
the forces are directed favourably towards the
buccal shelf (Fig. 1, Class I, 3). A possible solution
to this undesirable effect is to move the axis of
rotation of the rest on the shorter side anteriorly,
creating a movement more perpendicular to the
ridge.
of rotation of the denture base at the longer
distal extension is at right angles to the longitudi-
nal axis of the residual ridge and the denture
base thus derives maximum support from the
residual ridge. At the shorter side an obtuse angle
is created with a resultant nonparallel arc move-
ment of the denture base, and subsequent
decreased support often resulting in lingual
pressure requiring controlled relief (Fig. 1, Class I,
4).
arc of rotation of the denture base is at an acute
angle to the longitudinal axis of the residual ridge.
The resultant force is directed towards the buccal

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 26; 165 – 169
168 Z . B E N - U R et al.

Fig. 5. Well-rounded ridge form.

have been classified as follows (Cawood & Howell, 1988;

Fig. 4. Equipoise-back action clasp designed to be distal to the Penhalt et al., 1985) (Figs. 5–8):
axis of rotation.
Class I—Dentate
plate which absorbs vertical forces and favourably Class II—Immediately post-extraction
supports the denture base (Fig. 1, Class II, 5). No Class III—Well-rounded form
adjustments are usually necessary. Class IV—Knife edge ridge form
(vi) With Kennedy Class II tapered arch situations, the Class V—Flat ridge form
arc of rotation of the denture base is almost paral Class VI—Depressed ridge form
lel to the longitudinal axis of the residual ridge,
In cases where the rotation around the long axis of
with maximum support being provided and no
the denture base occurs (Fig. 1, Class I, 2; Class I, 3;
alterations usually necessary to the denture base
Class I, 4; Class II, 5), a well-rounded ridge form allows
(Fig. 1, Class II, 6).
this rotation to proceed smoothly. Rotation of a den-
ture base around a sharp-edged ridge (knife-edged, flat
Cross-sectional shape of the edentulous or depressed ridges) can cause pressure spots and dis-
ridge comfort to the patient (arrows in Fig. 1). In many cases
Cross-sectional arch form changes following tooth loss it is advisable to use a permanent resilient denture base

Fig. 6. Knife edge ridge form. Fig. 7. Flat ridge form.

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 26; 165–169

 A S P E C T S F O R K E N N E D Y C L A S S I A N D II D E N T U R E S
Fig. 8. Depressed ridge form.
(Ryan, 1991; Kawano et al., 1994) to alleviate the
traumatic effect of undesirable pressure areas in these
cases when surgical contouring of the residual ridges is
contra-indicated.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Ms. Rita Lazar for editiorial
assistance.
References
APPLEGATE, O.C. (1960) The rationale of partial denture choice.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 10, 891.
APPLEGATE, O.C. (1965) Essentials of Removable Partial Denture
Prosthesis, 3rd. edn, p. 13. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadel-
phia, PA. . hyoid ridges. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 54, 230.
AVANT, W.E. (1966) A universal classification for removable
partial denture situations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 16,
533.
AVIV, I., BEN-UR, Z. & CARDASH, H. (1988) An analysis of rota-
tional movement of asymmetrical distal-extension removable
partial dentures. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 61, 211.
BAILYN, M. (1928) Tissue support in partial denture construc-
tion. Dental Cosmos, 70, 988.
BECKETT, L.S. (1953) The influence of saddle classification on
the design of partial removable restorations. Journal of Pros-
thetic Dentistry, 3, 503.
BENSON, D. & SPOLSKY, V.W. (1979) A clinical evaluation of
removable partial dentures with I-bar retainers. Part I. Journal
of Prosthetic Dentistry, 41, 246.
BEN-UR, Z., AVIV, I. & CARDASH, H. (1988) An approach to
direct retainer design for distal extension removable partial
dentures. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 60, 342.
© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 26; 165 – 169
169
BERG, T. (1984) I-Bar: myth and countermyth. Dental Clinics of
North America, 28, 371.
CAWOOD, J.I. & HOWELL, R.A. (1988) A classification of the
edentulous jaws. International Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery,
17, 232.
COSTA, E. (1974) Simplified system for identifying partially
edentulous dental arches. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 32,
639.
DEMER, W.J. (1976) An analysis of mesial rest I-bar clasp de-
signs. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 36, 243.
ELIASON, C.M. (1983) RPA clasp design for distal extension re-
movable partial dentures. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 49, 24.
ELLINGER, C.W., RAYSON, J.H., TERRY, J.M. & RAHN, A.O. (1985)
Synopsis of Complete Dentures, p. 58. Lea & Ferbiger, Philadel-
phia, PA.
FRIEDMAN, J. (1953) The ABC classification of partial denture
segments. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 3, 517.
GODFREY, R.J. (1951) Classification and selection of attachments.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 18, 5.
GOODMAN, J.J. & GOODMAN, H.W. (1963) Balance of force in
precision free-end restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,
36, 243.
KAWANO, F., KON, M., KORAN, A. & MATSUMOTO, N. (1994)
Shock-absorbing behaviour of four soft denture liners. Journal
of Prosthetic Dentistry, 72, 599.
KENNEDY, E. (1923) Partial denture construction. Dental Items of
Interest, 47, 23.
KRATOCHVIL, F.J. (1963) Influence of occlusal rest position and
clasp movement. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 13, 114.
KROL, A.J. (1973) Clasp design for extension-base removable
partial dentures. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 29, 408.
MAUK, E.K. (1942) Classification of mutilated dental arches re-
quiring treatment by removable partial dentures. Journal of the
American Dental Association, 29, 2121.
MILLER, E.L. (1970) Systems for classifying dentulous arches.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 24, 25.
PENHALT, B., RODEN, D. & ESTERMAN, A. (1985) Increased toler-
ance to complete dentures after surgical modification of mylo-
PICTON, D.C.A. (1978) Viscoelastic properties of the periodontal
ligament and mucous membranes. Journal of Prosthetic Den-
tistry, 40, 263.
RYAN, J.E. (1991) Twenty five years of clinical application of a
heat-cured silicon rubber. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 65,
658.
SKINNER, C.N. (1959) A classification of removable partial den-
tures based on the principles of anatomy and physiology.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 9, 240.
SWENSON, M.G. & TERKLA, L.G. (1955) Partial Dentures, 3rd edn,
pp. 215. The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, MO.
Correspondence: Dr Z. Ben-Ur, Department of Oral Rehabilita-
tion, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental
Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978,
Israel.