EC Dental Science

Introduction: Because of the growing requests by patients for a fixed prosthesis, to avoid the extensive surgical or restorative procedures that may be involved in an implant or teeth supported fixed prosthesis, many dentists have been using fixed partial dentures with free end pontics. Such prosthesis, called cantilever fixed partial dentures have one or more abutments at one end while the other end remains unsupported [1]. Much controversy surrounds cantilevered FPDs, but despite negative arguments, clinicians still extensively use them. If used non-judiciously, they can lead to complications. The prime disadvantage of cantilever FPDs is the creation of a class one lever. Forces that are transmitted through the unsupported pontics can cause tilting and rotational movements of the abutment, leading to its failure. The success of a cantilever FPD depends on various factors, including abutment selection, the strength of connectors and the control of functional forces. When planned correctly, cantilever prosthesis can be used as an alternative treatment modality.

Aim of the Study: The aim of this paper is to discuss the basic concepts of cantilever fixed partial dentures, the factors that play a role in its planning and success, and their clinical applications.

Methodology: The article is a comprehensive research of PUBMED papers.

Conclusion: When planned carefully and used judiciously, cantilevered fixed partial dentures serve as a good alternative treatment option. It is a compromise when compared to an FPD secured at both ends and an implant, but may serve the primary purpose of rehabilitation in cases where the other options are not feasible due to any reason. However, it requires thorough evaluation and treatment planning, taking biomechanical, stress distribution, and occlusal factors into consideration. Favorable clinical conditions, appropriate design, sound mechanical features and good post insertion hygiene are necessary for the longevity and success of such prosthesis.

Keywords: Cantilever Fixed Partial Dentures; Free Pontics; Anterior Cantilever FPD; Cross Arch Cantilever FPD

1. Wright WE. “Success with the cantilever fixed partial denture”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (1986): 537-539.
2. Henderson D., et al. “The cantilever type of posterior fixed partial dentures: a laboratory study”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry1 (1970): 47-67.
3. Wright W E. “Success with the cantilever fixed partial denture”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (1986): 537-539.
4. Himmel R., et al. “The cantilever fixed partial denture-a literature review”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry4 (1992): 484-487.
5. Wright K W J and Yettram AL. “Reactive force distributions for teeth when loaded singly and when used as fixed partial denture abut[1]ments”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry4 (1979): 411-416.
6. Lundgren D and Laurell L. “Occlusal force pattern during chewing and biting in dentitions restored with fixed bridges of cross‐arch extension: I. Bilateral end abutments”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation1 (1986): 57-71.
7. Nyman S., et al. “The role of occlusion for the stability of fixed bridges in patients with reduced periodontal tissue support”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology2 (1975): 53-66.
8. Laurell L and Lundgren D. “Periodontal ligament areas and occlusal forces in dentitions restored with cross-arch bilateral end abutment bridges”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology10 (1985): 850-860.
9. Antonoff SJ. “The status of cantilever bridges”. Oral Health1 (1973): 8-11.
10. Randow K., et al. “Technical failures and some related clinical complications in extensive fixed prosthodontics: an epidemiological study of long-term clinical quality”. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica4 (1986): 241-255.
11. Glantz PO., et al. “On functional strain in fixed mandibular reconstructions II. An In vivo study”. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica5 (1984): 269-276.
12. Randow K and Glantz PO. “On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth an experimental clinical study”. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 44.5 (1986): 271-277.
13. Trapozzano VR. “Selecting the correct restoration”. Dental Clinics of North America (1960): 273.
14. Ewing JE. “Re-evaluation of the cantilever principle”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry1 (1957): 78-92.
15. Stein RS. “Pontic-residual ridge relationship: a research report”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (1966): 251-285.
16. Henry P J., et al. “Tissue changes beneath fixed partial dentures”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (1966): 937-947.
17. Budtz-Jørgensen E., et al. “Cantilevered fixed partial dentures in a geriatric population: preliminary report”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry4 (1985): 467-473.
18. Hochman N., et al. “The cantilever fixed partial denture: a 10-year follow-up”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (1987): 542-545.