What Occlusal Scheme Should Be Used with Removable

Partial Dentures?
1
Charles J. Goodacre, DDS, MSD & Brian J. Goodacre, DDS, MSD2
1
Advanced Education Program in Implant Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA
2
Division of General Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA

Keywords
Removable partial denture (RPD); occlusion;
occlusal scheme.
Correspondence
Brian J. Goodacre, DDS, MSD, Division of
General Dentistry, Loma Linda University
School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA 92350.
E-mail: bgoodacre@llu.edu
Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of
interest with this publication.
Accepted September 28, 2020
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13313
Abstract
Purpose: Multiple clinical studies have been published comparing different philoso-
phies of complete denture occlusion and different types of denture teeth. However,
it is unclear whether comparable data are available for occlusal schemes used with
removable partial dentures (RPDs). Therefore, this review investigated the dental lit-
erature related to occlusal schemes for RPDs.
Materials and methods: A PubMed search of English language articles was per-
formed using the term “removable partial denture, occlusion” with 765 results. When
the term “occlusion in removable partial prosthodontics” was used there were 784
results. Seventy-four articles were identified using the different search term of “RPD,
occlusion” while use of the term “occlusal scheme, with removable partial den-
tures” listed 18 publications. The term “removable partial denture, occlusion, lit-
erature reviews” produced 38 potential publications related to the topic. Using the
term “removable partial denture occlusion systematic review” resulted in 2 citations.
Using the term “RPD occlusion literature review” resulted in one foreign language
manuscript whereas using the term “RPD occlusion systematic review” resulted in
one article unrelated to dentistry. The term “clinical studies of RPD occlusion” pro-
duced 5 results with none related to the topic. There were 23 results using the term
“clinical studies of removable partial denture occlusion” with one potentially related
to RPD occlusal schemes.
Results: A review of the titles and abstracts revealed 12 articles that appeared to
contain specific information about the occlusal scheme used with RPDs. Following
a detailed review of those publications, only 4 contained recommendations for RPD
occlusion and were included in this review. The available information regarding the
recommendations for occlusal schemes in these articles was based on expert opinion.
A decision was made to include a hand search of 9 textbooks containing varying
amounts of information related to occlusal schemes for RPDs, but no evidence-based
references related to RPD occlusal schemes were found in the textbooks. Since this
entire review is based on expert opinion, no attempt was made to critique the opinions
expressed by these authors but rather to present their perspectives for evaluation by
readers.
Conclusions: The occlusion developed with RPDs should be physiologically har-
monious, allowing the supporting structures to remain in a good state of health with
functional stress distributed among all the occluding teeth. Multiple authors indicate
the occlusion in maximum intercuspation/centric occlusion should incorporate bi-
lateral posterior contacts with no deflective occlusal contacts. When most occlusal
contacts on natural teeth are missing, it has been proposed that extension base RPDs
have their occlusal contacts developed in centric occlusion. Regarding eccentric oc-
clusal relationships, a balanced occlusal scheme has been recommended by multi-
ple authors with one author advocating use of a lingualized balanced. An anterior
guided (canine-protected) occlusion has also been recommended when the canines
are present and not periodontally compromised. When RPDs oppose a complete den-
ture, several authors indicate a bilateral balanced occlusion should be used to help
stabilize the complete denture.

78 Journal of Prosthodontics 30 (2021) 78–83 © 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists

Goodacre and Goodacre
Multiple clinical studies1–9 have been published comparing
different philosophies of complete denture occlusion and dif-
ferent types of denture teeth. In addition, there is a Cochrane
Collaboration review,10 multiple systematic reviews,11–13 and
a literature review14 pertaining to occlusal schemes used with
complete dentures. However, it is unclear whether comparable
data are available for occlusal schemes used with removable
partial dentures (RPDs).
Focus Question: What occlusal scheme
is best suited for removable partial
dentures?
Search strategy
A PubMed search of English language articles was performed
using the term “removable partial denture occlusion” with
765 results. When the term “occlusion in removable partial
prosthodontics” was used there were 784 results. Seventy-four
articles were identified using the different search term of “RPD
occlusion” while use of the term “occlusal scheme with remov-
able partial dentures” listed 18 publications. The term “remov-
able partial denture occlusion literature reviews” produced 38
potential publications related to the topic. Using the term “re-
movable partial denture occlusion systematic review” resulted
in 2 citations. Using the term “RPD occlusion literature re-
view” resulted in one foreign language result whereas using the
term “RPD occlusion systematic review” resulted in one article
unrelated to dentistry. The term “clinical studies of RPD occlu-
sion” produced 5 results with none related to the topic. There
were 23 results using the term “clinical studies of removable
partial denture occlusion” with one potentially related to RPD
occlusal schemes.
Selection of publications to be reviewed
Following a review of the titles and abstracts, 12 articles15–26
appeared to contain specific information about the occlusal
scheme used with RPDs and they were selected for full review.
One of these 12 articles was a literature review21 that provided
evidence-based findings regarding removable prosthodontic
and dental implant occlusions but did not include recommenda-
tions specific to removable partial dentures, perhaps due to the
author’s lack of finding such data in their literature search. A
systematic review22 focused on randomized and other clinical
trials of occlusal design for crowns, complete dentures, RPDs,
and implant reconstructions. Guidelines were presented for the
occlusal scheme used with implants but not for RPDs. None
of the above publications contained evidence-based data spe-
cific to the question of occlusal scheme recommendations for
RPDs but one publication24 did provide data about communi-
cation between practitioners and laboratories relative to RPDs.
However, in this study,24 there was no mention of communi-
cation related to the RPD occlusal scheme to be used by the
dental laboratory, presumably because no such communication
occurred.
Following a detailed review of the above 12 publications,
it became apparent that the available information regarding
the occlusal scheme to be used with RPDs did not contain
scientific evidence but was based on expert opinions. Only
Journal of Prosthodontics 30 (2021) 78–83 © 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Removable Partial Denture Occlusion
415, 16, 19, 20 of the 12 articles selected for full review contained
recommendations for RPD occlusion and therefore they were
included in this review. Due to this small number of expert
opinion publications, a decision was made to perform a hand
search of removable partial denture textbooks to see if any
evidence-based references were included in the texts as well
as what expert opinions were presented in the books. Nine
textbooks27–35 contained varying amounts of information re-
lated to occlusal schemes for RPDs and they were included in
this literature review but no evidence-based references related
to RPD occlusal schemes were found in the textbooks. Since
this entire review is based on expert opinion, no attempt was
made to critique the opinions expressed by these authors but
rather to present their perspectives for evaluation by readers.
Developing a physiologically harmonious
occlusion
Henderson16 stated that occlusion in a successfully treated re-
movable partial denture (RPD) patient allows the masticatory
mechanism to carry out its physiologic functions while the
temporomandibular joints, the neuromuscular mechanism, and
the teeth with their supporting structures remain in a good state
of health. Two of the major purposes of a removable partial
denture are to restore function and preserve the remaining oral
structures15 with fewer undesirable changes occurring in the
supporting structures when the RPD is stable.16 Many factors
are responsible for producing a stable RPD with occlusion be-
ing “one of the most important factors.”16
Miller and Grasso30 stated that “a partial denture with a har-
monious occlusion is one in which functional stress is dis-
tributed among all of the occluding teeth, and there are no de-
flective contacts as the mandible moves through the chewing
cycle and into a position of tight intercuspation.” Applegate27
added a recommendation to remove premature occlusal con-
tacts on natural teeth that cause an occlusal slide to centric oc-
clusion before the natural teeth are restored.
Concepts for RPD occlusion
Davies et al.19 proposed two concepts for RPD occlusions, one
being ‘conformative’ and the other being ‘re-organized.’ The
conformative concept ‘conforms’ to the patient’s present oc-
clusal scheme whereas the re-organized concept is focused on
producing a more idealized occlusion that sometimes includes
altering the occlusal vertical dimension. Colman15 stated that
“the influence of the remaining natural teeth is usually such
that the occlusal forms of the teeth on the partial denture
must conform to an already established occlusal scheme.” An-
other proposed concept is that “the design of the prosthesis
should conform with and be complementary to the existing
occlusion.”35
Occlusal contacts in maximum
intercuspation/centric occlusion
It has been proposed that the existing occlusal relationship
be maintained when the patient’s maximum intercuspal po-
sition is physiologically stable and there are no symptoms
of dysfunction.20 In addition, these authors20 state that the
79
Removable Partial Denture Occlusion
existing occlusal scheme in lateral movements should not be
altered unless needed to correct a nonphysiologic condition.
Multiple authors indicate there should be simultaneous bilat-
eral posterior tooth contact in maximum intercuspation with
RPDs16,20,33–35 with no deflective occlusal contacts.16 This
contact should be present between natural teeth, between natu-
ral teeth and replacement denture teeth, and between oppos-
ing denture teeth. The RPD should not hold opposing nat-
ural teeth out of contact or “some form of destruction will
occur.”33 Terkla and Laney28 indicate equilibration of denture
teeth should be performed until there is even contact of all
teeth. Renner and Boucher31 state that the goal of occlusal ad-
justment is to eliminate all deflective occlusal contacts and pro-
vide simultaneous occlusal contact between the natural teeth
and denture teeth at the desired occlusal vertical dimension.
Colman15 proposed that extension base RPDs have only centric
occlusal contact with the extension bases being discluded by
the remaining natural dentition when sufficient posterior teeth
are in contact and they dictate occlusal guidance. Also, John-
son and Stratton29 indicated RPDs should only have centric
occlusal contacts when there is canine guidance of the natural
dentition.
When most centric occlusal stops are missing on natural
teeth, Henderson16 stated that RPDs should be fabricated with
occlusal contacts occurring in centric relation. He went on to
state that “by far the greatest number of distal extension remov-
able partial dentures” should have occlusal contacts developed
in centric occlusion.16
Eccentric occlusal relationships
A balanced occlusal scheme was recommended by Terkla
and Laney28 with contact of posterior prosthetic teeth during
working and nonworking side mandibular movements as well
as protrusive balance with contact of anterior and posterior
teeth during a protrusive movement. However, “only limited
protrusive balance is possible” when patients have substantial
vertical overlap of the anterior teeth.28 In addition, Johnson
and Stratton29 indicated the presence of steep anterior canine
disclusion “usually precludes any possibility of developing
extensive working or balancing contacts in the artificial
occlusion.” Jagger35 proposed use of a balanced occlusion
with bilateral extension base RPDs.35 For maxillary bilateral
extension base RPDs, Henderson16 recommended developing
simultaneous working and nonworking side contacts along
with simultaneous contact of the remaining natural teeth
during a working side mandibular movement.
A ‘lingualized occlusion’ also has been advocated for estab-
lishing a balanced occlusion with complete dentures.36–40 With
RPDs, Kratochvil32 stated that a lingualized occlusion reduces
and simplifies both the development of a balanced occlusion
and subsequent adjustment after the RPD is completed. When
the lingual cusps of maxillary natural teeth are positioned over
the mandibular residual ridge, the only contact will be the lin-
gual cusp against the mandibular denture teeth. With this re-
lationship, there will be contact in centric relation and during
2.0 to 3.0 mm in excursive movements. When anterior guid-
ance is provided by natural teeth, it is advantageous to have the
80 Journal of Prosthodontics 30 (2021) 78–83 © 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Goodacre and Goodacre
posterior occlusion disengage after 2.0 or 3.0 mm of eccentric
mandibular movement.32
An anterior guided (canine-protected) articulation also has
been proposed as desirable for RPDs, being preferred when
the remaining canines are present and not periodontally
compromised.20 The authors indicated such anterior guidance
eliminates posterior tooth contacts during eccentric mandibular
movements and allows any posterior tooth occlusal morphol-
ogy to be used.20 However, when patients have missing canines
that are being replaced by an RPD, it has been proposed that a
group function or unilateral balanced occlusion be used.20
RPDs opposing complete dentures
When RPDs oppose a complete denture, a bilateral bal-
anced articulation has been recommended15,20,33,34 with bi-
lateral, simultaneous contact of anterior and posterior teeth
in centric occlusion as well as during eccentric mandibular
movements.16,32,33 The reason for using a bilateral balanced
articulation when opposing a complete denture is to promote
stability of the complete denture.34 But it has been stated that
simultaneous protrusive contacts “do not receive priority over
appearance, phonetics, and/or a favorable occlusal plane.”34
Johnson and Stratton29 recommend even contacts in centric
relation and during working and nonworking side mandibular
movements within the functional range when Class I and Class
II RPDs oppose a complete denture. One challenge with a bal-
anced occlusion with RPDs was noted by Miller and Grasso30
who indicated it often is not possible to attain the type of
balanced occlusion with RPDs that is strived for with com-
plete dentures. Miller and Grasso30 also stated that when only
mandibular anterior teeth are present and the mandibular RPD
opposes a maxillary complete denture, the natural teeth should
not be permitted to contact the maxillary teeth due to “the dam-
age which they are capable of inflicting on the anterior portion
of the maxilla.”
When developing an occlusal scheme for a removable partial
denture opposing a complete denture, Renner and Boucher31
propose considering both the balanced occlusion concept and
the nonbalanced monoplane occlusion. They state use of a
monoplane occlusion is most appropriate when the remaining
mandibular teeth are or can be modified to produce a relatively
flat occlusal plane. This type of monoplane occlusion is most
often used with patients who have an Angle Class I or III jaw
relationship and only a few remaining mandibular teeth or in
patients who exhibit extreme wear of the occlusal surfaces of
their remaining teeth.
Occlusal plane
Henderson16 indicated displacement of a mandibular extension
base RPD is increased when the occlusal plane is overly ele-
vated posteriorly or when a pronounced compensating curve
has been developed in the replacement teeth.
When reestablishing an occlusal plane, Ivanhoe and
Plummer20 proposed drawing a line between the most distal
natural tooth and the middle to upper one-third of the retro-
molar pad. They also indicated the plane of occlusion should
equally divide the available interarch space.
Goodacre and Goodacre
Occlusal load application
The occlusal load should be applied in the center of
the denture-bearing area, both anteroposteriorly and
faciolingually.33
Tooth selection and positioning
It has been recommended20,34 that the occlusal morphology of
artificial teeth should be matched to that of the opposing natu-
ral teeth. Also, it has been stated that the occlusal form of the
remaining natural teeth are usually such that the denture teeth
on the RPD must conform to the already established occlusal
pattern.15 Ivanhoe and Plummer20 indicate anatomic teeth can
be used to establish not only a bilateral balanced occlusion
but a group function occlusion and a mutually protected re-
lationship. Henderson16 indicated the artificial posterior teeth
should be smaller faciolingually than the natural teeth they
replace.
Generally anatomic or semi-anatomic maxillary and
mandibular posterior denture teeth are used to develop a
lingualized occlusion with complete dentures but a monoplane-
type lingualized occlusion can be developed where monoplane
mandibular teeth are used along with anatomic maxillary
teeth for improved complete denture esthetics and function.
However, Ivanhoe and Plummer20 stated that nonanatomic
teeth are seldom indicated with RPDs unless they oppose a
complete denture or RPD that has a monoplane occlusion or
when a monoplane lingualized occlusion is being developed.
Another potential use of monoplane teeth with RPDs is when
there are jaw size discrepancies that result in maxillary and
mandibular teeth needing to be horizontally changed from their
normal positions relative to each other but not by the dimension
of a full cusp as is required with cusped teeth.
Mandibular posterior denture teeth should not be positioned
over an upward incline of the residual ridge or be positioned
farther posteriorly than the beginning of the retromolar pad.16
Carr and Brown34 also state denture teeth should not be posi-
tioned farther distally than the beginning of an upward incline
of the mandibular residual ridge or over the retromolar pad.
Likewise, Phoenix, Cagna, and DeFreest33 indicate the artifi-
cial teeth should not be positioned over the upward slope of
the mandibular residual ridge as it “may result in movement of
the prosthesis and the application of destructive forces to the
remaining teeth and tissues.”
Occlusal scheme recommendations based on
the Kennedy Classification
There have been several recommendations made regarding the
occlusal scheme to be used with different Kennedy classifica-
tions of RPDs.
Class I and II RPDs
When the occlusion is physiologically healthy, it has been
recommended that the existing occlusal scheme be used, ei-
ther mutual protection or group function.20 When natural ca-
nines are present, an anterior guided occlusion has been pro-
posed as the type of RPD occlusion to establish since it re-
duces the lateral forces generated on the distal extension during
Journal of Prosthodontics 30 (2021) 78–83 © 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Removable Partial Denture Occlusion
function.20 Conversely, a group function occlusion has been
recommended when the patient’s canines are missing or peri-
odontally compromised20 but it has been proposed that group
function be avoided when there are no remaining premolars
since a canine-protected articulation reduces destructive lateral
forces that would be generated on extension bases by a group
function occlusion.20 A balanced occlusion is recommended
when an RPD opposes a complete denture.20
Henderson16 proposed that mandibular Class I and Class II
RPDs have centric occlusal and working side occlusal con-
tacts but no contact of posterior teeth during nonworking side
movements. In other words, a group function type of occlu-
sion. However, for maxillary Class I RPDs opposing Class
I RPDs, he proposed use of both working and nonworking
side posterior contacts.16 In contrast, for both Class I and II
RPDs, Colman15 proposed that only centric occlusal contacts
be present when sufficient posterior teeth are present to provide
occlusal guidance and when the jaw and tooth relationships are
such that the anterior teeth in the opposing arches provide guid-
ance to the occlusal scheme.15
With maxillary bilateral extension base RPDs, Carr and
Brown34 recommend a balanced occlusion be developed with
working and nonworking side contacts of the posterior teeth to
help compensate for the unfavorable position of the maxillary
posterior teeth that often occupy a position facial to the residual
ridge due to bone resorption. With mandibular Kennedy Class
II RPDs, these authors34 proposed that working side contacts
only be developed on the extension base side of the prosthesis
since contacts present on the tooth-supported side of the RPD
would not improve RPD stability since it is retained by natural
teeth on the side opposite the extension base.
Class III RPDs
Ivanhoe and Plummer20 indicated Class III RPDs should be re-
stored to the existing occlusal scheme if the existing occlusion
is physiologically healthy and the resulting scheme could ei-
ther be a mutually protected or group function occlusion. Carr
and Brown34 also recommend the patient be restored to the ex-
isting occlusal scheme, which may either be an anterior guided
occlusion or a group function occlusion.
Phoenix, Cagne, and DeFreest33 recommend the occlusion
with tooth-supported RPDs should be similar to a harmonious
natural dentition with a mutually protected articulation being
the goal for most patients.33 The authors33 provide details
regarding use of a mutually protected occlusion. The posterior
teeth should provide slight separation of the anterior teeth
in maximum intercuspation. During eccentric mandibular
movements, the posterior teeth separate from each other due
to contact of the anterior teeth that produces anterior guid-
ance. However, some patients may require a group function
occlusion because it was present before tooth loss and did
not contribute to the tooth loss. With such a group function
occlusion, lateral mandibular movements result in multiple
anterior and posterior tooth contacts that are characteristically
limited to the working side.33
In contrast to use of a mutually protected occlusion,
Colman15 recommended the replacement teeth be in contact in
centric occlusion and also during working side movements but
81
Removable Partial Denture Occlusion
not during nonworking side movements when there are suf-
ficient posterior teeth present to dictate occlusal guidance. A
group function articulation has been recommended when the
patient’s natural canine is missing or periodontally compro-
mised. As stated with previous classes of RPDs, a balanced
articulation was also recommended when a Class III RPD op-
poses a complete denture.20
Class IV RPDs
With Kennedy Class IV RPDs, Phoenix, Cagna, and
DeFreest33 indicate the replacement denture teeth should have
light occlusal contact with the opposing natural dentition to
prevent eruption of the natural teeth and provide arch stability.
Carr and Brown34 agree that contact of opposing anterior teeth
is desirable to prevent continuous eruption of opposing incisors
unless the teeth are otherwise prevented from extrusion by the
presence of a lingual plate, auxiliary bar, or by splinting.
Eccentric occlusal relationships on the denture teeth are
developed to be harmonious with the selected occlusal
scheme (mutually protected, group function, or balanced
articulation).33 Ivanhoe and Plummer20 state that the anterior
denture teeth can either provide disclusion or participate in a
group function relationship. However, the experience of the au-
thors of this paper indicate that natural esthetic positioning of
the denture teeth often results in their placement in positions
where they naturally produce anterior guidance.
As with the other Kennedy Classifications, a balanced artic-
ulation is suggested when the prosthesis opposes a complete
denture except that some clinicians believe a balanced artic-
ulation is not desirable or clinically attainable and they use a
lingualized or monoplane occusion with no anterior tooth con-
tact in function.20
Consensus conclusions
Based on a review of 4 journal articles and 9 textbooks, the
following expert opinions are offered:
The occlusion developed with removable partial dentures
(RPDs) should be physiologically harmonious, allowing the
supporting structures to remain in a good state of health with
functional stress distributed among all the occluding teeth. It
has been proposed that the existing occlusal relationship be
maintained when the intercuspal position is stable with no
symptoms of dysfunction. Also, the existing occlusal scheme
in lateral movements should not be altered unless it is not
physiologic.
Multiple authors indicate the occlusion in maximum inter-
cuspation/centric occlusion should incorporate bilateral poste-
rior contacts with no deflective occlusal contacts. When most
occlusal contacts on natural teeth are missing, it has been pro-
posed that extension base RPDs have their occlusal contacts
developed in centric relation. Recommendations regarding ec-
centric occlusal relationships have included a balanced oc-
clusal scheme while recognizing only limited protrusive bal-
ance is possible when there is substantial vertical overlap of the
anterior teeth. Likewise, steep anterior canine disclusion usu-
ally prevents the development of extensive working and non-
working side contacts.
82 Journal of Prosthodontics 30 (2021) 78–83 © 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Goodacre and Goodacre
When developing a balanced articulation, a lingualized oc-
clusion has been advocated since it is easier to develop and
subsequently adjust. An anterior guided (canine-protected) oc-
clusion has also been recommended for RPDs when the ca-
nines are present and not periodontally compromised. When
RPDs oppose a complete denture, a bilateral balanced occlu-
sion has been recommended to help stabilize the complete den-
ture. However, it has been stated that development of simulta-
neous anterior and posterior protrusive contacts does not re-
ceive priority over appearance, phonetics, and/or development
of a favorable occlusal plane. A challenge noted by one au-
thor was the difficulty of developing a balanced occlusion with
RPDs that is comparable to that strived for with complete den-
tures. It also has been proposed that a non-balanced monoplane
occlusion can be considered.
One author indicated displacement of a mandibular exten-
sion base RPD is increased when the occlusal plane is overly
elevated posteriorly or when a pronounced compensating curve
has been developed in the replacement teeth
A recommendation made regarding the denture tooth mor-
phology was to match the morphology of the opposing natural
teeth and conform to the established occlusion. It was stated
that anatomic teeth are capable of being used with a bilateral
balanced occlusion, a group function occlusion, and a mutu-
ally protected occlusion. Anatomic and semi-anatomic teeth
have been commonly used to develop a lingualized occlusion.
Monoplane denture teeth can be used with RPDs but their use
has been limited. Mandibular posterior denture teeth should not
be positioned over an upward incline of the residual ridge or
over the retromolar pad.
A recommendation for Kennedy Class I and II RPDs was to
use the existing occlusal scheme being either mutual protection
or group function. A balanced occlusion has also been recom-
mended. For Kennedy Class III RPDs, use of the existing oc-
clusal scheme was recommended. One textbook proposed that
a mutually protected articulation should be the goal. Another
opinion was to use group function. With Class IV RPDs, con-
tact of the prosthetic teeth with the opposing natural teeth has
been advocated to prevent eruption of the natural teeth with ec-
centric relationships being either a balanced articulation, group
function, or mutually protected occlusion.
References
1. Kimoto S Gunji A, Yamakawa A, et al: Prospective clinical trial
comparing lingualized occlusion to bilateral balanced occlusion
in complete dentures: a pilot study. Int J Prosthodont
2006;19:103-109
2. Deniz DA, Kulak Ozkan Y: The influence of occlusion on
masticatory performance and satisfaction in complete denture
wearers. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:91-98
3. Kawai Y, Ikeguchi N, Suzuki A, et al: J Prosthodont Res
2017;61:113-122
4. Peroz I, Leuenberg A, Haustein I, et al: Comparison between
balanced occlusion and canine guidance in complete denture
wearers—a clinical, randomized trial. Quintessence Int
2003;34:607-612
5. Farias Neto A, Mestriner Junior W, Carreiro Ada F: Masticatory
efficiency in denture wearers with bilateral balanced occlusion
and canine guidance. Braz Dent J 2010;21:165-169
Goodacre and Goodacre
6. Paleari AG, Marra J, Rodriquez LS, et al: A cross-over
randomized clinical trial of eccentric occlusion in complete
dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2012;39:615-622
7. Niwatcharoenchaikul W, Tumrasvin W, Asksornnukit M: Effect
of complete denture occlusal schemes on masticatory
performance and maximum occlusal force. J Prosthet Dent
2014;112:1337-1342
8. Sutton AF, McCord JF: A randomized clinical trial comparing
anatomic, lingualized, and zero-degree posterior occlusal forms
for complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:292-298
9. Heydecke G, Akkad AS, Wolkewitz M, et al: Patient ratings of
chewing ability from a randomized crossover trial: lingualised
vs. first premolar/canine-guided occlusion for complete
dentures. Gerodontology 2007;24:77-86
10. Sutton AF, Glenny AM, McCord JF: Interventions for replacing
missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous
people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;25:(1):CD004941
11. Abduo: occlusal schemes for complete dentures: a systematic
review. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:26-33
12. Zhao K, Mai QQ, Wang XD, et al: Occlusion designs on
masticatory ability and patient satisfaction with complete
denture: a systematic review. J Dent 2013;41:1036-1042
13. Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Gomes JML, et al: Bilateral balanced
occlusion compared to other occlusal schemes in complete
dentures: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2018;45:344-
354
14. Farias-Neto A, Carreiro Ada F: Complete denture occlusion: an
evidence-based approach. J Prosthodont 2013;22:94-97
15. Colman AJ: Occlusal requirements for removable partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1967;17:155-162
16. Henderson D: Occlusion in removable partial prosthodontics. J
Prosthet Dent 1972;27:151-159
17. Whitbeck P, Ivanhoe JR Symposium on semiprecision
attachments in removable partial dentures. Occlusal
relationships. Dent Clin North Am 1985;29:149-162
18. Mähönen KT, Virtanen KK Occlusion and craniomandibular
function among patients treated with removable partial dentures.
J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:233-240
19. Davies SJ, Gray RM, McCord JF Good occlusal practice in
removable prosthodontics. Br Dent J 2001;191:491-494,
497-502
20. Ivanhoe JR, Plummer KD: Removable partial denture occlusion.
Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:667-683
21. Taylor TD, Wiens J, Carr A Evidence-based considerations for
removable prosthodontic and dental implant occlusion: a
literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:555-560
22. Klineberg I, Kingston D, Murray G The bases for using a
particular occlusal design in tooth and implant-borne
reconstructions and complete dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res
2007;18Suppl 3:151-167
Journal of Prosthodontics 30 (2021) 78–83 © 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Removable Partial Denture Occlusion
23. Aras K, Hasanreisoğlu U, Shinogaya T: Masticatory
performance, maximum occlusal force, and occlusal contact area
in patients with bilaterally missing molars and distal extension
removable partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:204-209
24. Kilfeather GP, Lynch CD, Sloan AJ, et al: Quality of
communication and master impressions for the fabrication of
cobalt chromium removable partial dentures in general dental
practice in England, Ireland and Wales in 2009. J Oral Rehabil
2010;37:300-305
25. Sánchez-Ayala A, Gonçalves TM, Ambrosano GM, et al:
Influence of length of occlusal support on masticatory function
of free-end removable partial dentures: short-term adaptation. J
Prosthodont 2013;22:313-318
26. Poštić SD: Specific occlusal scheme for partially edentulous
patients with TMD signs-preliminary report. J Stomatol Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2018;119:337-333
27. Applegate OC: Essential of Removable Partial Denture
Prosthesis. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, 1959, 266,
273, 342
28. Terkla LG, Laney WR: Partial Dentures, Saint Louis, The C.V.
Mosby Company, 1963, pp 307-311
29. Johnson DL, Stratton RJ: Fundamental of Removable
Prosthodontics, Chicago, Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc,
1980, pp 183-190
30. Miller EL, Grasso JE: Removable Partial Prosthodontics,
Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1981, pp 215-259
31. Renner RP, Boucher LJ: Removable Partial Dentures, Chicago,
Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc, 1987, pp 265-349
32. Kratochvil FJ: Partial Removable Prosthodontics, Philadelphia,
W.B. Saunders Company, 1988, pp 146-150
33. Phoenix RD, Cagna DR, DeFreest CF: Stewart’s Clinical
Removable Partial Prosthodontics, Chicago, Quintessence
Publishing Co, Inc, ed 4, 2008, pp 105: 393-394
34. Carr AB, Brown DT: McCracken’s Removable Partial
Prosthodontics (ed 12), St Louis, Elsevier, 2011. pp 242-252
35. Jagger R: Occlusion and removable prosthodontics, in Klineberg
I, Eckert S (eds): Functional Occlusion in Restorative Dentistry
and Prosthodontics, St. Louis, Elsevier Mosby, 2016, pp
225-233
36. Payne SH: A posterior set-up to meet individual requirements.
Dent Digest 1941;47:20-22
37. Payne SH Posterior occlusion. J Am Dent Assoc
1958;57:174-176
38. Pound E: Utilizing speech to simplify a personalized denture
service. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24:586-600
39. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: Lingualized integration: tooth molds
and an occlusal scheme for edentulous implant patients. Implant
Dent 1992;1:204-211
40. Parr GR, Ivanhoe JR: Lingualized occlusion. An occlusion for
all reasons. Dent Clin North Am 1996;40:103-112
83