TYPES

HOOKS
They are divided into Circumferential
Gachos
and Bar Hooks
DIFFEREN
CES
 Circumferential Bar Hook
Hook Only the final third of the
Retention: free of contact with mucosa
circumferential hook must cross the line and the gingival margin. The arm length is
equatorial tooth and enter the area of can increase, increasing the
retention . If, by mistake, another part of the flexibility, this is useful when using a
hook enters this area, the force that hook on a premolar or on a tooth that
required for insertion and removal have reduced periodontium or disease
on the line of the dental equator could periodontal.
affect the periodontium and exceed the limit
alloy proportional,
distorting the hook.
Hold: A bar hook approaches the
tooth only at the tip. The rest of the arm is
 DIFFEREN
Expulsive
area CES
 DIFFEREN
Circumferential CES Bar Hook
Hook Only the final third of the
Retention: free of contact with mucosa
circumferential hook must cross the line and the gingival margin. The arm length is
equatorial tooth and enter the area of can increase, increasing the
retention . If, by mistake, another part of the flexibility, this is useful when using a
hook enters this area, the force that hook on a premolar or on a tooth that
required for insertion and removal have reduced periodontium or disease
on the line of the dental equator could periodontal.
affect the periodontium and exceed the limit
alloy proportional,
distorting the hook.
Hold: A bar hook approaches the
tooth only at the tip. The rest of the arm is
 DIFFEREN
CES
Circumferential Hook Bar Hook
 DIFFEREN
CES
Circumferential Hook Bar Hook
Body
Active Tip Body
Ecuador

active tip

1/3 2/2 1/3 2/3

3/33 3/33
 Rigidit Esthetic
y
The circumferential hook is more In bar hook in some
rigid in its upper part, which will cases may be more aesthetic.
above the equatorial line of the tooth.
This component prevents horizontal forces from the tooth.
 OCCLUSION HYGIEN
A circumferential hook has two
E
There is no evidence to indicate
thirds of it facing occlusally and that the bar hook accumulates
contacts the opposing teeth. Breaks more plaque, but if the patient has
must be prepared so that there are poor oral hygiene, it may increase
no interferences the risk of root caries .
 HOOKS
CIRCUMFERENTIA
L
DISADVANTAGES
1. They are less aesthetic.
2. More tooth surface is covered than with bar clasps due to their occlusal origin.
3. It can increase the occlusal surface of the tooth.
4. More metal is visible in the lower arch than with bar hooks.
However, the disadvantages can be minimized with proper preparation of
the abutment teeth .
ACKER RETAINER
 Indications : '
s-.( )
1. Kennedy Class III, for tooth-supported removable prostheses with strong abutments - -\ k Q
(molars).
05
B-/,'
2. In the posterior pillars of a Class IV. Yo''
3. On the rear pillar side of a Class II modification 1.
° | 11 ITH^
08
_ ! 0or 06 t
4. In class II between molars or premolars on the dentate side.
Ij
1
5. When the retention is located in the buccal area of the abutment tooth that is far away ''
of the edentulous section.
6. In cases where the abutment is inclined towards the buccal and in periodontally compromised teeth.
 Contraindications
When the dental equator or aesthetics do not allow it.
 ACKER RETAINER

- Advantages
- Good support and stability
- Simple design and easy to build
- Easy to repair when broken and repurpose when bent
- Not easily deformed
. - The body of the retainer and its elements that are located above the equator, provide support together with
the occlusal support.
- It is less likely to accumulate food than other retainers.
 DISADVANTAGES
~II /
S=-i (
♥ It can promote cavities, because it contacts the surface of the tooth along the entire length
of its arms.
♥ It may be less aesthetic.
0 " / / /7-____________________________
or,ll///lllilill

♥ Limited possibility of variation in its design. °or 0.5

03 '
♥ The holding power is less than the bar type retainer. . - II l\ I
♥ It can traumatize abutments when incorrectly designed at the free end.
♥ When a circumferential hook is placed on the neighboring abutment of a free end, it can
have a destructive action on the abutment if optimal support of the base is not maintained.
DOUBLE
HOOK
ACKER
 Q8t
either,

1. Double support on two molars.

2. Two stabilizer arms per lingual.
3. Two retentive arms per vestibular.
4. Double support will prevent food impaction.
 INDICATIONS . ■ 'lit
-\TO' \\
either - \ \

• Kennedy Class II, on the dentate area.

or, /N 5--
• When there is a space between two teeth, this hook is used -uI06

to fill the space and provide retention to the prosthesis.

- , YO
• When there is not enough retention in a single pillar.
• In Kennedy class III without modifications.
 0
0

CONTRAINDICATIONS

O, A //

• It should not be used when the retainer will traumatize the

abutment.
. • ■ — ■■ 11 i\ll
• When there is no space for the minor connector to cross the occlusal
surface.
' (( ))
Double jackson
o- Bounwill
 RING HOOK 00

It has a support adjacent to the edentulous space, where an arm emerges

reciprocal lingually and goes distally, where there will be support
auxiliary distal preventing the abutment from mesializing. Then it will go to
the
0r, vestibular surface and its retentive tip is located in the mesiobuccal.
 INDICATIONS
♥ It is used when the retentive area cannot be reached by other means.

♥ When distobuccal or distolingual retention cannot be addressed from the li area 08

-- 06

of occlusal support.

♥ In tooth-supported prostheses in which the retentive area of the abutment tooth is

adjacent to the edentulous area.

♥ In abutments with good periodontal support and high clinical crown.

 0
0

♥surface.
In lower molars inclined mesially and lingually with the retentive angle on the mesiolingual
,'',
♥ In upper molars inclined mesially and buccal with the angle.
either,

♥ retentive on the mesiobuccal surface

♥ In posterior molars in Kennedy Class III or on the tooth-supported side of Kennedy Class II .
 CONTRAINDICATIONS A H
r ))
♥ In severe distal retentive areas
♥ In upper molars with distobuccal retention
Advantages
- Good support and stability

Disadvanta
- Easily deformed and difficult to adjust
- Contacts a lot of tooth surface
- Poor aesthetics
- The accessory arms.
- Its occlusal origin can increase the functional load on
the tooth
ACTION HOOK
LATER
OC
 INDICATIO

In short teeth with little meso-buccal and distal retentive area.

either, ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ o rr /l¡ im I 111 . • ■
■ . 000608

In cases where the bar-type retainer is not indicated on abutments adjacent to a

free end and aesthetics are not as important.
In anterior teeth of tooth-supported prostheses when the prognosis of the posterior
abutments is not good.
 CONTRAINDICATIONS

In molars by arm length

Use small retentive areas

The length of the retainer produces flexibility and a force-breaking effect on the
abutments at the free end.
 DISADVANTAGES
♥ Easy to be distorted by its length.
♥ Difficult to adjust.
♥ Covers a large area of the abutment tooth.
♥ Little resistance to lateral forces.
♥ Food accumulation between the stabilizer arm and the major connector.
 0
0

It is a variant of the ring hook that differs in that it does not have the minor
lingual connector and has a single stop. The hook is very long and flexible (it
will not provide the necessary reciprocity or stability), it will be difficult to
adjust and will easily distort. O i ■'
, ' ■ * II l \l I
Consequently, it is a mechanically defective design and its use is not advisable.
INVERTED REAR ACTION
HOOK
AZAREL SANCHEZ CORTEZ
 INDICATIONS

Lingually inclined lower premolars adjacent to a free end. ', -

either, (///)__________________-
o rr /l¡ mi I 111
. " i - • 0010608

CONTRAINDICATIONS
’ ‘ 1/
♥ Upper prostheses for aesthetic reasons
♥ When there is a severe retentive angle in the soft tissues below the gingival margin.
 DISADVANTAGES

• Crosses soft tissues

• Has force-breaking action • Due
to its length it is easily distorted
• difficult to adjust
• It is not aesthetic
• Covers large tooth surface
MULTIP
LE
HOOK
AZAREL SANCHEZ CORTEZ
 0
0

They are two opposing circumferential hooks that are joined at the
end of two stabilizing arms.
° or 06 os L

' • ’ ,i hj i
It has a mesial support on the mesial pillar and a distal one on the
distal pillar. There is a minor connector for each support.
 INDICATIONS
• In tooth-supported prostheses in which the intercalary edentulous area is
unilateral, located on the opposite side.
either, /,)

• In posterior pillars together and united that have a buccal retentive

00r -06 O 8 C
area
• In lower premolars adjacent to the edentulous space.
• When it is necessary to strengthen periodontally weak posterior pillars.
• When the retention offered by the most posterior abutment is not
sufficient and the tooth next to the abutment allows the retention of the
most distal abutment to be increased.
 CONTRAINDICATI
J
80

ONS
• It should not be used when the two isolated pillars have very
retentive on proximal surfaces.

• When its presence in the lower jaw exposes a lot of metal

 ADVAN DISADVANTAGES
TAGES

• It serves to provide additional support to

periodontally weak teeth by allowing the distribution
of forces between the two teeth next to each other.
• Good support and stability
• Good retention.
• Properly use the few remaining pillars in the
posterior area.
• Covers a lot of tooth surface.
• It can be distorted relatively easily.
• Food debris may accumulate between the lingual
arms and the major connector.
V10OMOH N3
OHONVD
 0
0

It is a variety of Ackers that, unlike this one, seeks retention in the

area close to the edentulous area but is much more rigid than the ring
clasp (due to the inflection made by the retentive arm). It has a stop
adjacent to the edentulous section from which a lingual reciprocal arm
originates and a retentive arm that initially heads distally but, after
inflection, will be lodged in the mesiobuccal.
Indications:
It is not used very frequently since
the abutment tooth has to have two
important requirements: good
periodontal support and a high
crown; the candidate teeth are
usually mesialized lower molars.
 0
0

PI
H
O
O
K
R
It is composed of an “I” hook, a proximal plate and a mesial support; During function it works in a larger retention
area and is disengaged from the tooth as the occlusal force acts on the teeth at the free end.
,-
The advantages of this clasp are that it disengages during function, it does not increase the diameter of the clinical
crown and it has minimal tooth contact. Furthermore, the mesial support directs the forces to the longitudinal axis
of the tooth. The tip should always be away from the occlusal support so that the retentive tip moves in the passive
area during function and does not move occlusally generating torsional forces on the abutment.
• A distal extension base cannot have rigid clasps on the abutment tooth. If
used like this, during occlusal loading, the bases will have a cantilever effect
and the clasps will act as a forceps, removing the abutment tooth.
The occlusal rest is prepared mesoocclusally of the abutment tooth adjacent
to the
free end; This support should allow the prosthesis to be move
traumatized to the abutment. without
• The proximal plate is located on the distal surface of the abutment, after
preparing the guide plane (2 to 3 mm high in the occlusogingival direction).

O\ 3")
either, /)

• Below the distal guiding plane there should be no contact between the
proximal plate of the retainer and the surface of the tooth, to avoid that during
the distal inclination movements of the free end, the proximal plate pushes the
abutment in a mesial direction, traumatizing it and pressing the gingival margin
in this zone.
 0
0

When used in tooth-supported cases, the tip of the I hook must

-

maintain contact for 2mm of the length of the hook, of which 1mm
will go above the dental equator and the other below. In free ends,
the retentive tip must be placed entirely below the equator and
mesial because otherwise it will displace the fulcrum distally.
roximal Support
plate
collector
minor
 INDICATIONS
■ At the free end, especially in lower premolars

■ In Kennedy class I and II in the most distal abutment when there is a mesial retentive angle or in the central vestibular part.
■ It is also used in distobuccal angles when aesthetics is a relevant factor. r
06
OQT 08 e

In situations that require less tensioning retainers for periodontally compromised abutments.
■ In situations where aesthetics are the first consideration.
■ When there is a retentive angle in the soft tissues that does not allow close proximity of the bar to the mucosa, this can irritate
the gingival tissue.
 CONTRAINDICATIONS
• Insufficient depth of the vestibule to allow the base of the “I” arm to have at least
3mm of separation from the bottom of the sulcus.

When the abutment has a severe lingual inclination that does not present buccal
either, /)
•
retention
°e “ °'
Illi
• When the abutment is severely displaced buccally or lingually

• When the floor of the mouth is high and does not leave space to make a proximal
contact plate separate from the minor connector of the occlusal rest. In these cases a
lingual plate is made.
Advantages
• - Allows the prosthesis to move during function without traumatizing the abutment

J 80
- Prevents hyperplasia of gingival tissue distal to the abutment
- Minimal contact with the tooth surface
• - Does not alter the normal anatomical contour of the pillar.

Disadvantages
• - Stability is not very good
- The abutment must be prepared by the dentist.
0
0
 dp%, •/,

z 7 3 ""
A /x7 /'•
or, /N 35--
It may have both ends in the retentive zone, or one end may be in the
retentive zone and the other in the expulsive zone. This . °%•
retainer is made flexible for retention purposes and the portion I'I
supraequatorial does not offer stability or reciprocity. 0
0
Indications
• - Kennedy Class I and II when the abutments have distal retention - In posterior abutments
with areas
retentives adjacent to the edentulous space.

Contraindications
• - Deep retentive zones in soft tissues
- Upper canines and premolars where the minor connector seems to be very visible.
Advantages
• - Good aesthetics in lower canines and premolars

J 80
- Contacts little tooth surface
- More versatile in design due to the shape of the retention, they are more flexible during
insertion and removal.
- Gives more stability than other bar hooks.

Disadvantages
• - Difficult to adjust
- Stability is not as good as circumferential retainers
- Poor aesthetics in the upper jaw
- It can trap food where the minor connector crosses the gingival margin.
 IT IS A MODIFICATION
0
0

OF THE PRY.
Indications
- It has the same features as the PRY but is a little more aesthetic
- It is used on upper premolars, for better aesthetic results.
- Kennedy class I and II when the abutments are retained distally
- In posterior pillars with retentive areas adjacent to the edentulous space.

Contraindications
- Deep retentive zones in the soft tissues
- Upper canines and premolars where the minor connector appears to be very visible
- In teeth that have the equator very close to the occlusal third because it creates a space under the connector of the retentive
arm.
Advantages
- Good aesthetics in lower canines and premolars
- Contacts little tooth surface - More versatile for your design
- Due to the shape of the retention, they are more flexible during insertion and removal.

- difficult to adjust

Disadvanta
- Stability is not as good as circumferential retainers
- Poor aesthetics in the upper jaw ges
It can trap food where the minor connector crosses the gingival margin.
 0
0

It is a modification of the RPI, but instead of the “I” bar it has a circumferential
arm of the Acker retainer. It is a retainer that is used at the free end when
vestibular retention is poor or when the soft tissues in that area have a
pronounced retentive angle. The occlusal rest and proximal plate are the same
as the RPI retainer.
the base moves
 0
0

parallelizer EITHER\

", ■%

• It helps determine the axis of insertion of our PPR so that when it is inserted
and removed from the mouth it does not damage the remaining structures.
• Designed by a vertical bar, a platform on which the model holder slides, which
has a spherical joint that allows the platform to move in the horizontal plane.
 0
0

• A screw that is fixed and that allows the model to be placed

in
or,
/,) a support has a vertical column on which it depends , a
horizontal arm, this is a yelenco type tangenciometer that
has an articulated arm and that facilitates the analysis
maneuver.
 0
0

• There is another Ney tangentionometer that does not have

this joint where the arm is fixed.
 0
0

• Has an analyzer tip (interchangeable)

• A) metallic : allows you to locate the insertion shaft.
• B) graphite : to draw on the model the retentive areas, equator,
prosthetic, etc.
• C) retention calipers : they are like lentils at the tip of the stem, the
larger the diameter, the greater the distance from the part where it
touches to the bottom.
 0
0

• D) Wax spoon: this instrument is used in the last phases of making a

removable partial denture to eliminate or block undesirable retentions
with wax.
• E) Carbon marker: can be used to determine the
equator or outline a retentive zone in the soft tissues or ridges.
 0
0

or oh
3 / x B'//,
-

Parallelize Study Models

• Determine the insertion axis ■ ?

or 06 os (
• Determine the prosthetic equator of the abutment pieces
• Locate and measure areas of teeth used in retention (under
 0

the prosthetic equator are retentive areas)

0

• Retentive soft tissue and bone areas; that can

become interference
yewepne.
 Denture Treatment: A review of literature. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14:164-172. 3. Graham R, Mihaylov S, Jepson N, Allen P, Bond S. Determining "need"
for a removable partial denture: a qualitative study of factors that influence dentist provision and patient use. Br Dent J. 2006;200:155-158. 4. Zitzmann N,
Rohner U, Weiger R, Krastl G. When to choose which retention element to use for Removable Dental rostheses.Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22:161-167. 5.
Davenrport J, Basker R, Heath J, Ralph R, Glantz P. Communication between the dentist and the dental technician. Br Dent J. 2000;189(9):471-474. 6.
Boucher L, Renner R. Rehabilitation of partial edentulousness; 1984:10. 7. Lechner S, Thomas G, Bradshaw M. An Interactive Multimedia Solution to
Learning Removable Partial Dental Design.JProsthodont. 1998;7:177-182. 8. Lindquist T, Clancy J, Johnson L, Wiebelt F. Effectiveness of Computer-Aided
Removable Partial Denture Design. J Prosthodont. 1997;6:122-127. 9. Prosthodontics. TAo.The Glossary of Prosthodonticterms.JProsthet Dent.
2005;94(1):1090. 10. Davenport J, Basker R, Heath J, Ralph R, Glantz P. The removable partial denture equation.Br Dent J. 2000;189(8):414-224. 11. Loza
Fernandez D, Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 2006;17. 12. Loza Fernandez D, Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable
Partial Prosthesis.; 2006;24. 13. Loza Fernandez D, Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 2006;64. 14. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown
D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006;68. 15. Loza Fernandez D, Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 2006;89.
16. Loza Fernandez D, Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 2006;91. 17. MallatDesplats E, MallatCallís E. Removable partial
dentures and overdentures; 2000;57.
18. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial prosthesis. 11 ed; 2006;198. 19. Mericske-Stern R. Removable Partial Dentures. Int J
Prosthodont. 2009;22(5):508-511. 20. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial prosthesis. 11 ed; or, 2006;20. 21. Loza Fernandez D,
Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 2006;108. 22. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed;
2006;74-75. ° g-- -- . .
■ :■|Ii'''
• 23. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006;76-77. 24. Rebossio A. Partial prothesis 0u r 06

08 P
Removable.; 1995;113. 25. Rebossio A. Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 1995;113-114. 26. Thompson W, Kratochvil J, Caputo A. Evaluation of photoelastic
stress patterns produced by various design of bilateral distal-extension removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent.
,
2004;91:103-113. 27. LaVere A, Krol A. Selection of a major connector for the extension-base removable partial denture. J. III/
ProsthetDent. 2005;94:207-208. 28. Boucher l, Renner R. Partial Edentulous Rehabilitation.; 1984;127. 29. Boucher L, Renner R.
Partial Edentulous Rehabilitation.; 1984;16-17. 30. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006:46-53. 31. Carr A,
McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006:49. 32. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture.
11 ed; 2006:48. 33. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006:49-50. 34. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken
Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006:50. 35. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006:58. 36. García J,
Olavarria L. Removable Partial Prosthesis, practical and logical sequence for its design.; 2001:97. 37. MallatDesplast E, MallatCallís E. Removable Partial
Prosthesis and Overdentures.; 2005:14. 38. Loza Fernández D, Valverde Montalva H. Design of Removable Partial Prosthesis.; 2007:73-74. 39. Carr A,
McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial denture. 11 ed; 2006:52-53. 40. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial
prosthesis. 11 ed; 2006:52. 41. Green L, Hondrum S. The effect of design modifications on the torsional and compressive rigidity of U-shaped palatal major
connectors.JProsthet Dent. 2003;89:400-407. 42. Ben-Ur Z, Mijiritsky E, Gorfil C, Brosh T. Stiffness of different designs and cross sections of maxillary and
mandibular major connectors of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:526-532. 43. Potter R, Appleby R, Adams C. Removable Partial
Denture design: a review and a challenge. J Prosthet Dent. 1967;17:63-68. 44. Daniels R, Granata J. The rotational-path removable partial
denture.CompendContinEduc Dent. 1985;16:716-720. 45. Jacobson T. Satisfying esthet demands with rotational path partial dentures. J Am Dent Assoc.
1982;105:460-465. 46. MallatDesplast E, MallatCallís E.
Removable Partial Prosthesis and Overdentures.; 2005:20. 47. Carr A, McGivney G, Brown D. McCracken Removable partial prosthesis. 11 ed; 2006:40-41.