New Clasp Assembly for Distal Extension Removable

Partial Dentures: The Reverse RPA Clasp

Mohammad Ayham Hakkoum, DDS, MS
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Kalamoon, Der Atiah, Syrian Arab Republic

Keywords
Dental clasps; denture design; denture
retention; removable partial denture.
Correspondence
Dr. Mohammad Ayham Hakkoum, University
of Kalamoon – Prosthodontics,
Damascus-Aleppo Hwy, Der Atiah 222, Syrian
Arab Republic. E-mail: drayham@yahoo.com
Abstract
Several clasp types are used in distal extension removable partial dentures. In some
cases the terminal abutments have only distal retentive undercuts that can be occupied
by bar clasps; however, bar clasps may be contraindicated with no suitable alternative.
This article presents a reasonable solution by introducing a new clasp design as
a modification to the well-known RPA clasp. The design includes a mesial rest,
proximal plate, and buccal retentive arm arising from the rest and extending to reach
the distal retentive undercut.

The author denies any conflicts of interest.

Accepted January 15, 2015

doi: 10.1111/jopr.12313

Retention is an important challenge in distal extension remov-

able partial dentures (RPDs). A direct retainer should provide
good retention, accommodate functional movement of the pros-
thesis, minimize the effect of the lever, and prevent the transfer
of harmful forces to the abutments. For that reason, many the-
ories about retention in distal extension RPDs have arisen, and
various types of clasps have been introduced.
The mesial rest concept is associated with clasps used in dis-
tal extension RPDs to shift the axis of rotation more favorably
and minimize the harmful forces.1-3 Several types of bar clasps
are used.4-6 This clasp reaches the retentive area from a gingival
direction and moves with the denture base movement so it does
not transfer harmful forces to the abutment. The most common
types are T (or modified T) clasps, which are suitable when the Figure 1 RPI clasp on mandibular first premolar.
retentive undercut is located distally.4,7 The I-bar clasp is also
commonly used if there is a retentive undercut at the mesiodistal
prominence of the abutment or to the mesial.8
The I-bar type is frequently used in the RPI clasp (Fig 1),
which consists of a mesial rest, a proximal plate, and an I-bar
retentive arm. The RPI design has the advantage of disengaging
the tooth when excessive load is applied to the distal extension
base, so it acts as a stress breaker.2,9,10 However, it may be im-
possible to use bar clasps in some situations (shallow vestibule,
a large tissue undercut, severe tilt of the abutment).7,11 An RPA
clasp can be used in such cases (Fig 2); it is a modification
of the RPI clasp and consists of mesial rest, proximal plate,
and Akers retentive arm arising from the distal guiding plate.
The retentive tip disengages the tooth when applying excessive
Figure 2 RPA clasp on maxillary second premolar.
load.9,12

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2015) 1–3 

C 2015 by the American College of Prosthodontists 1
Reverse RPA Clasp Hakkoum

Figure 3 Combination clasp on maxillary first premolar. Figure 4 Reverse RPA clasp on mandibular first premolar (buccal view).

A combination clasp is useful too; it is similar to the Akers

circumferential clasp, except that the retentive arm is wrought-
wire (Fig 3). Its flexibility reduces the lever action and prevents
the transfer of harmful forces to the abutment.13-15 However,
RPA and combination clasps may not be used unless the abut-
ment has a mesial retentive undercut.7 So what if the abutment
has only a distal retentive undercut adjacent to the distal ex-
tension base, with something preventing the use of bar clasps?
Ring clasps and reverse-action clasps have been mentioned for
use in such situations,7 but these clasps have several known
disadvantages. Some authors suggested the use of a reverse cir-
clet clasp.16 However, the existence of a reciprocal arm above
the height of contour may preclude the downward movement Figure 5 Reverse RPA clasp on mandibular first premolar (occlusal
of the retentive tip. So it would not disengage the tooth when view).
an excessive load is applied to the distal extension base. More-
over, the role of the mesial rest may be cancelled so the harmful
forces are transmitted to the abutment.
The design introduced in this article addresses the problem
mentioned above with a new clasp type that accommodates
such situations.

Procedures
1. Accomplish diagnostic procedures.
2. Survey the diagnostic cast.
3. Select suitable clasps.
a. If the abutment has a distal retentive undercut, use a
T- or modified T-bar clasp.
b. If the retentive undercut is located at the greatest
mesiodistal prominence of the abutment or to the
mesial, use an RPI clasp (Fig 1).
c. If bar clasps are contraindicated, use RPA or com-
bination clasps, provided there is a mesial retentive
undercut (Figs 2 and 3).
d. If the retentive undercut is located to the distal, use
the new clasp design suggested in this article.
The new design (Figs 4 and 5) is a modification of the RPA
clasp, and it may be called a reverse RPA clasp. It consists of
the following three elements (Fig 6):
(1) Mesial rest with minor connector as in RPI and RPA
clasps;
(2) Distal guiding plate as in RPI and RPA clasps;
Figure 6 Reverse RPA clasp; mesial rest (MR) with minor connector
(MC), proximal plate (PP), and circumferential retentive arm (RA) arising
from mesial rest.
(3) Buccal circumferential retentive arm arises from the
mesial rest and extends to reach the distal retentive under-
cut (while the retentive arm in an RPA clasp arises from
the distal guiding plate and engages a mesial undercut).
4. Perform the necessary mouth preparation.
5. Accomplish the conventional steps of RPD fabrication.
Discussion
The suggested design (reverse RPA clasp) provides a suitable
solution for direct retention in distal extension RPDs when
the abutment has a distal retentive undercut, especially when the
bar clasp is contraindicated. As in the RPA clasp, a reciprocal
arm is not needed, because the minor connector of the rest in the
mesial and the guiding plate in the distal provide reciprocation,

2 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2015) 1–3 

C 2015 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Hakkoum
Figure 7 Movement direction of reverse RPA retentive tip when apply-
ing occlusal load to distal extension base.
especially if the guiding plate is slightly extended to the lingual.
When applying forces to the distal extension base, the retentive
tip will move downward, disengaging the abutment as a result
of rotation around an axis through the mesial rest and the rigid
portion of the retentive arm occlusal to the height of contour
(Fig 7), so the harmful forces are not transmitted to the abut-
ment. In the reverse circlet clasp that downward movement may
not occur because the presence of the reciprocal arm above the
height of contour on the lingual surface would interfere with
the movement mentioned above.
Other alternatives, such as ring clasp and reverse-action
clasp should not be considered as stress-releasing types. In
addition to their distal rests, they also involve complicated
designs and excessive tooth surface coverage, resulting in
compromised oral hygiene, accumulation of food, poor es-
thetics, and low adjustability. In practical use, a reverse-action
clasp may be too rigid, while the ring clasp has increased
flexibility.
Another advantage of the reverse RPA clasp is that the re-
tentive arm gets direct support from the rest. The ring clasp
requires a supporting strut crossing the gingival margin, so it is
contraindicated in the presence of a lingual undercut or shallow
vestibule. On the other hand, a reverse-action clasp cannot be
used unless the abutment has a crown with sufficient height;
however, the reverse RPA clasp has some disadvantages rising
from traversing the abutment mesial marginal ridge so it re-
quires more preparation in the mesial of the abutment, esthetics
may be compromised, and it may cause occlusal interference.
Therefore, this clasp may be contraindicated if it would cause
an occlusal problem. Studies on this new clasp are required to
investigate its strengths and weaknesses, and find solutions to
overcome its disadvantages.
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2015) 1–3 
C 2015 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Reverse RPA Clasp
Summary
The reverse RPA clasp (mesial rest, distal guiding plate, and
buccal retentive arm arising from the rest and extending to
occupy a distal retentive undercut) is a suitable choice for pro-
viding retention in distal extension RPDs when there is distal
retentive undercut, especially if bar clasps are contraindicated.
This clasp disengages the abutment when excessive forces are
applied and prevents its injury.
References
1. Zach GA: Advantages of mesial rests for removable partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1975;33:32-35
2. Kratochvil FJ: Influence of occlusal rest position and clasp
design on movement of abutment teeth. J Prosthet Dent
1963;13:114-124
3. Thompson WD, Kratochvil FJ, Caputo AA: Evaluation of
photoelastic stress patterns produced by various designs of
bilateral distal-extension removable partial dentures. J Prosthet
Dent 1977;38:261-273
4. Renner RP, Boucher LJ: Removable Partial Dentures (ed 1).
Chicago, Quintessence,1987, pp. 46,96
5. Clayton JA, Jaslow C: A measurement of clasp forces on teeth. J
Prosthet Dent 1971;25:21-43
6. Bezzon OL, Gonçalves M, Pagnano VO: T-bar clasp-retained
removable partial denture as an alternative to implant-based
prosthetic treatment. Braz Dent J 2008;19:257-262
7. Carr AB, Brown DT: McCracken’s Removable Partial
Prosthodontics (ed 12). St. Louis, Mosby, 2011, pp. 74-79,127
8. Mansueto MA: I-bar removable partial dentures. In Phoenix RD,
Cagna DR, DeFreest CF (eds): Stewart’s Clinical Removable
Partial Prosthodontics (ed 4). Chicago, Quintessence, 2008,
pp.249-258
9. Krol AJ: RPI (rest, proximal plate, I bar) clasp retainer and its
modifications. Dent Clin North Am 1973;17:631-649
10. Taylor DT, Pflughoeft FA, McGivney GP: Effect of two clasping
assemblies on arch integrity as modified by base adaptation. J
Prosthet Dent 1982;47:120-125
11. LaVere AM: Analysis of facial surface undercuts to determine
use of RPI or RPA clasps. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:741-743
12. Eliason CM: RPA clasp design for distal-extension removable
partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:25-27
13. Kotowicz WE, Fisher RL, Reed RA, et al: The combination clasp
and the distal extension removable partial denture. Dent Clin
North Am 1973;17:651-660
14. Browning JD, Meadovvrs LW, Eick JD: Movement of three
removable partial denture clasp assemblies under occlusal
loading. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:69-74
15. Krug RS: Metal framework modifications to accommodate
wrought wire clasps in distal extension removable partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:79-81
16. Grasso JE, Miller EL: Removable Partial Prosthodontics (ed 3).
St. Louis, Mosby,1991, pp. 158-160
3