Hidden clasps versus C clasps and I bars: A comparison of retention

Effect of Clasp Design on Retention at Different Intervals Using Different Abutment Materials and in a Simulated Oral Condition

“…The mean retention in N was: 13 for SGEI, 11.1 for SGBI, 13.2 for SGEII, 11.4 for SGBII, 11.2 for SGEIII, and 10.7 for SGBIII. These results are in agreement with those of Firtell, Bates, and Stade et al, and at variance with Soo and Leung . The variation in retention force compared with the previous study may be due to the difference in the flexibility of the alloys used, the amount of deflection, or the testing models.…”

“…Various clasp designs for achieving sufficient retention for RPDs have been discussed . The long‐arm clasps (roach, back‐action, reverse back‐action, modified ring, and extended arm varieties) have more retentive force than short‐arm clasps…”

Effects of Long‐Term Simulated RPD Clasp Attachment/Detachment on Retention Loss and Wear for Two Clasp Types and Three Abutment Material Surfaces

“…The results of retention force before cycling were in agreement with previous studies 1,2,4 . Firtell 1 found that the retention force of the E‐clasp was about 13.7 N and 1.6 N for the back‐action clasp.…”

“…Firtell 1 found that the retention force of the E‐clasp was about 13.7 N and 1.6 N for the back‐action clasp. Bates 2 obtained similar results in a similar experiment; however, Soo and Leung 4 reported that the retention force of Aker's clasp was 17.5 N. The results of retention force before cycling were in agreement with previous studies 1,2,4 …”

“…Sufficient retention of removable partial dentures (RPDs) is considered one of the most important factors affecting their clinical success. Many studies have investigated the effect of clasp design on retention force 1–4 . Retention of RPDs is accomplished by placing clasp parts into undercuts on abutment teeth.…”