REMOVABLE PROSTHODONTICS

SECTION EDITORS
LOUIS BLATTERFEIN S. HOWARD PAYNE GEORGE A. ZARB

Clinical evaluation of swinglock removable partial

dentures
John K. Schulte, D.D.S., M.S.D.,* and Dale E. Smith, D.D.S., M.S.D.**
University of Minnesota, School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minn., and University of Washington, School of
Dentistry, Seattle, Wash.

S ince its introduction

swinglock removable
in 1963 by Simmons, the
partial denture has gained
changes in patients who received a swinglock remov-
able partial denture as part of their dental treatment
some degree of acceptance, but it is still controver- at the University of Washington School of Dentistry.
sial. The design concept utilizes a preformed hinge Patient acceptance was evaluated by means of a
and lock attachment which are incorporated into a questionnaire.
cast metal framework so that a labial bar with clasp
contacts is hinged and locked to the lingual section
METHODS AND MATERIALS
(Fig. 1). The labial bar functions as a stabilizing and A total of 78 patients were treated with swinglock
retentive element. The unique feature of the design removable partial dentures at the University of
allows the use of all remaining teeth as primary Washington from 1971 to 1976. Letters and phone
abutments, removable splinting, and positive reten- contact were attempted with all 78 patients. Fifty-
tion. three patients reported for examination, prophylaxis,
The swinglock removable partial denture is advo- and radiographs, representing 68% recall success. Of
cated in the treatment of patients who have under- the 25 remaining patients who did not participate in
gone periodontal therapy and require some type of the study, 19 could not be contacted, 4 had died, and
stabilization for the remaining teeth. Sprigg 2 refused to participate. The 53 subjects included 15
reported successful treatment of periodontal patients men and 38 women, and the average age was 60.8
with the swinglock removable partial denture and years.
stated that the swinglock removable partial denture Most of the swinglock removable partial dentures
can function indefinitely in patients who are candi- were constructed by undergraduate students. Four of
dates for complete dentures. the removable partial dentures were constructed by
The swinglock removable partial denture is also a maxillofacial prosthodontist. Preprosthetic treat-
indicated where a key abutment tooth is missing. A ment consisted of a thorough head and neck exami-
bilateral distal extension removable partial denture nation, oral examination, and history. All necessary
replacing all but a few incisors and one canine is an dental treatment was performed before placement of
example of such a situation (Fig. 2). Since all the removable partial denture. This treatment
remaining teeth act as abutments, stress to a weak included restoring carious teeth, replacing defective
distal abutment is reduced. restorations, and nonsurgical and surgical periodon-
The objective of this study was to evaluate the oral tal therapy. Patients were instructed in the proper
use of dental floss and tooth brush. Topical applica-
tion of fluoride was not included in patient treat-
Read before the Pacific Coast Society of Prosthodontists, Orcas
ment. Encouragement was given throughout treat-
Island, Wash.
Submitted in partial fulfillment by the principal author to meet ment to maintain a high level of oral hygiene.
the requirements for the M.S.D. degree, University of Washing- Prosthetic treatment included the use of a semiad-
ton. justable articulator, arbitrary face-bow, irreversible
Supported by a grant from the Harry Young Research Fund, hydrocolloid impressions for framework fabrication,
Department of Prosthodontics, IJnivenity of Washington. and the altered-cast impression technique for all
*Assistant Professor, Program in Occlusion.
**Professor, Director of Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of distal extension removable partial dentures. Diag-
Prosthodontics. nostic casts were surveyed for guiding planes, tissue

0022-3913/80/120595 + 09$00.90/00 1980 The C. V. Mosby Co. THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 595
 SCHULTE AND SMITH

Table I. Distribution according to Kennedy

classification
I* II III

Maxillary 1 2 0
1.9% 3.7%
Mandibular 41 4 3
77.4% 7.5% 9.4%
Totals 42 6 5
79.2% 11.3% 9.4%

*Kennedy classification.

mesiobuccal, (2) midbuccal, (3) distobuccal. (4)

mesiolingual, (5) midlingual, and (6) distolingual.
All sulcus measurements were made with the Michi-
gan 0 Probe,* and the values were tabulated to
arrive at an average preinsertion sulcus depth for
each patient which could be compared to the aver-
age depth at the recall appointment.

Tooth mobility
Tooth mobility was recorded as follows: Class 0,
normal; Class I, horizontal movement not greater
than 1 mm; Class II, horizontal movement greater
Fig. 1. Swinglock removable partial denture with hinged than 1 mm, but less than 2 mm; and Class III,
labial bar in open and closed positions. vertical and horizontal movement. Evaluations
between classifications were given a + to the lower
class. This mobility classification was used at the
and tooth undercuts, and determination of occlusal preinsertion and recall appointments. A preinsertion
rest placement prior to preparation in the mouth. mobility average was tabulated and used for com-
Students were required to make appointments for parison with the recall average for each patient.
postinsertion adjustments after 3 days, 1 week, 2 Mobility recordings were made at the recall appoint-
weeks, and 6 weeks. The students also made any ment with the swinglock removable partial denture
other adjustments as necessary. Faculty members out of the mouth. Patients whose teeth were splinted
examined the patient with the student at all required by fixed restorations or any other type of permanent
postinsertion visits. stabilization were eliminated.
At the time of recall, the average time that the
removable partial dentures had been in service was Bone loss
2.5 years (Fig. 3). The distribution of the swinglock Changes in bone level were determined for each
removable partial dentures according to the Kenne- patient by comparison of radiographs obtained dur-
dy classification is shown in Table I. ing initial examination or following periodontal
Most of the removable partial dentures (77.4%) surgery and those obtained at the recall appoint-
were mandibular Class I, and only 5.6% were maxil- ment. The technique described by Schei et al: was
\ removable partial dentures. The opposing used for determination of the percentage of bone
arches contained 34 complete dentures, 12 overden- loss. This technique allows for determination of the
tures, 2 removable partial dentures, and 5 with percentage of bone loss around a single tooth and is
natural teeth. not subject to variations in radiographic technique.
The percentage of bone loss was recorded for each
Periodontal evaluations
tooth, and these recordings were averaged to arrive
During initial examination and after preprosthetic at the mean loss for each patient.
treatment, students measured and recorded gingival
sulcus depth at six locations on each tooth: (1) *Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL

5% DECEMBER 1990 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 6

SWINGLOCK REMOVABLE PARTIAL DENTURES

Fig. 2. Swinglock removable partial denture in mouth with five remaining anterior teeth.

16
I

o- 12 13-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 64

MONTHS

Fig. 3. Length of service of swinglock removable partial dentures at time of recall.

Dental caries were recorded as being in contact (that is, directly

Caries were recorded when decalcification was beneath the framework) or not in contact with the
seen or when loss of tooth structure could be felt with metal of the framework.
an explorer and/or seen on a radiograph. All carious
0cc1usa1 rests
lesions were restored prior to placement of the
removable partial denture; therefore, lesions present The function of occlusal or incisal rests is to
at recall were assumed to have developed between prevent vertical movement of the removable partial
the insertion date and recall date. Carious lesions denture toward the tissue and to transmit stress

THE jOURNAL OF PROSFHETIC DENTISTRY 597

 SCHlJLTE
ANDSMITH

I.0
B. No, it comes loose whilr 1 rat and
speak, but I can wear it.
.s
C. Yes, it stays in place most of the
-z
.G
1
time.
d .7- --D. Yes, it always stays in place.
P .G- -TT-?r
z :.;.>:.:.:.
.*.*.-.*.*.* 3. Are you satisfied with how well you chew food
zi .5- .g:i:$ with your swinglock partial denture?
ZE .4- --A. Yes, 1 am able to chew all foods.
~._ B. Yes, I am able to chew all but a few
.3-
foods.
.2. --C. No, I am not able to chew food very
.I- well.
0I -_ D. No, I am not able to chew food with
I It m the swinglock partial denture in
GROUP I 14 PATIENTS 13-18 MONTHS SERVICE place.
GROUP JI 17 PATIENTS IS- 37 MONn(S SERVICE
GROUPJIT I7 PATIENTS 38-75 MONTHS SERVICE 4. Are you satisfied with the comfort of your swing-
Fig. 4. Mean tooth mobility in the three groups of lock partial denture?
patients. ---A. No, 1 seldom wear it because it is so
uncomfortable.
-__- B. No, I can wear it but my ,jaw is sore
through the long axis of the teeth. When the swing- most of the time.
lock concept was first introduced, it was suggested C. Yes, it only occasionally causes dis-
that the design not include occlusal rests. For this comfort.
~ D. Yes, it never causes discomfort.
reason, some removable partial dentures were con-
structed without occlusal rests. A clinical judgment
5. Do you have difficulty placing and removing
was made and recorded as to whether tissue impinge-
your swinglock partial denture?
ment by the framework had occurred and related to -A. No, never.
presence or absence of occlusal rests. ~ B. No, only at times do I find it dificult
to place and remove.
Patient satisfaction questionnaire -C. Yes, only at times do I find it easy to
Patient satisfaction with comfort, fit, function, place and remove.
esthetics, management of the lock, and general D. Yes, always.
acceptance was assessed by means of the following
questionnaire: 6. Do you think the swinglock partial denture is
This questionnaire deals primarily with your unesthetic (bad looking)
opinions about your swinglock partial denture. Your -A. Yes, to such a degree I dont like to
identity will not be revealed and your answers will wear it.
be kept confidential. The answers you give will be _ B. Yes, but I wear it.
used to help improve services we offer you. ~ C. No, but it did give me some concern
when I first saw it.
Are you satisfied with your swinglock partial --..---D. No, I havent noticed any unesthetic
denture? aspects.
__ A. Yes, it is satisfactory in all respects.
B. Yes, it is satisfactory in most ways but 7. Does the bar that latches ever bother you?
has some faults. _ A. No, never.
-C. No, it has several faults, but I can _ B. No, but it requires getting used to.
wear it. _ C. Yes, I sometimes become aware of its
----D. No, it has so many faults I cannot presence.
wear it. ~ D. Yes, I seldom wear my swinglock due
to the bar.
2. Are you satisfied with how well your swinglock A value of excellent, good, fair, or Poor was
partial denture stays in place? assigned to responses given to each question. Patients
-A. No, it is so loose I dont like to wear were assured that their responses would not in&ence
it. future care received at the school of dentistry.

DECEMBER 1980 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 6

SWINGLOCK REMOVABLE PARTIAL DENTURES

4.0.
&
i? 3.5
3.5 - 4m
: 3.0 .

m
2.5
z

3 2.0 -

s I.5

2 1.0 -
I

I II m

GROUP I 14 PATIENTS 13-M MONTHS SERVICE GROUP I 12PATIENTS I3 - 18 MONTHS SERVICE

GROUP II 17 PATIENTS Is-37 MONTHS SERWCE GROUP II I5 PATIENTS 19 - 37 MONTHS SERVICE
GROUP Ill 17 PATIENTS h-75 MONTHS SERVICE GROUP III I2 PATIENTS 38-75 MONTHS SERVICE

Fig. 5. Mean sulcus depth in the three groups of Fig. 6. Mean percentage of loss of bone support in the
patients. three groups of patients.

Oral hygiene
same 53 teeth. The difference in the average of the
Oral hygiene was assessed by the Silness-Loe two radiographic groups was 0.05% with a standard
plaque index and the gingival index. deviation (SD) of 3.45%.
Other data recorded included tooth wear by the
removable partial denture, repairs, need for reline, FINDINGS
and clinical evaluation of fit. Of the 53 patients in this study, four had teeth
extracted while wearing their removable partial
Statistical methods dentures. This represents 7.5% of the patient popula-
The paired t-test was used to evaluate changes in tion. These four patients lost 13 teeth; one patient
mobility, sulcus depth, and bone loss. The level of had six teeth extracted, two patients had three teeth
significance was chosen at 0.01 due to the large extracted, and one patient had one tooth extracted.
number of variables in this type of clinical study. All extractions were required because of caries. The
total number of abutment teeth included in the
Analysis of measurement error study was 340; therefore, the percentage of tooth loss
All preinsertion recordings for mobility and sulcus was 3.8%.
depth were made by the student who treated the Thirty-four (64.2%) of the patients reported wear-
patient. Recall recordings were made by the princi- ing their removable partial denture during the day
pal author. It was impossible to determine interoper- and removing it at night. Nine patients (16.9%) wore
ator error for these measurements. the removable partial denture day and night, five
To test the accuracy of the observations at the (9.4%) wore it part of the day, and four (7.5%) did
recall appointment, 52 recordings were made on the not wear their removable partial denture at all. The
same teeth by the principal author and the coauthor four patients who did not wear their removable
for mobility, sulcus depth, and bone loss. Compari- partial denture were eliminated from the data with
son of these recordings demonstrated an average the exception of answering the patient question-
difference of 0.02 for mobility, 0.07 mm for sulcus naire.
depth, and 1.1% for bone loss.
Mobility changes
To assess the reproducibility of the bone loss scale,
53 teeth were measured by the principal author and Thirty-five patients had adequate preinsertion
compared to a second group of radiographs of the data in their charts to determine changes in mobility

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

 SCHULTI: AND SMITH

Table II. Results of patient questionnaire sulcus depth, all of the groups had an average depth
of 3 mm.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Overall satisfaction
Changes in bone level
31 15 3 0
Retention 37 12 0 0 Thirty-nine patients had adequate preinsertion
Mastication 39 10 0 0 data in their charts to determine change in bone
Comfort 24 22 2 1
level which occurred during the time interval
Ease of insertion and removal 40 7 1 1
Esthetic quality 33 12 4 1 between the preinsertion date and the recall appoint-
Acceptability of labial bar 31 10 5 1 ment. Preinsertion bone loss averaged 19.4%
(SD = 9.4%). Bone loss at recall averaged 21.8%:
(SD = 9.2%). This change was not statistically sig-
which occurred during the time interval between the nificant. The 2.4% increase in loss is within the
preinsertion date and the recall appointment. Prein- measurement error of the percentage bone loss tech-
sertion mobility averaged 1.1 (SD = 0.39). Mobility nique.
at the recall appointment averaged 0.49 (SD = These 39 patients were divided into three groups
0.40). This represents a reduction of total tooth relative to the length of time the swinglock remov-
mobility of 0.61 in the average patient. This change able partial denture had been in service. The mean
was statistically significant (p = .OOl). percentage of change in bone loss of these groups was
Mobility recordings were made for a total of 49 tabulated (Fig. 6). Again, it can be seen that there
patients at the recall appointment. These patients are no significant differences between the three
were divided into three groups relative to the length groups of patients.
of time the swinglock removable partial denture had
been in service. The mean mobility of these groups
Caries
was tabulated (Fig. 4). This analysis shows that the Thirty carious lesions were found in a total of 327
mean mobility of the three groups does not differ teeth. These 30 lesions were present in 1 I patients,
significantly; that is, patients who have worn a which represents 22.4% of the total number of
swinglock removable partial denture for periods of patients examined. These lesions were assumed to
38 to 75 months do not appear to demonstrate any have developed after the insertion of the removable
more tooth mobility on the average than patients partial denture, because carious teeth were restored
who have worn swinglock removable partial den- and defective restorations were replaced in prepros-
tures from only 13 to 18 months. thetic treatment. Eighteen of the lesions were in
actual contact with the metal framework, and 12 of
Changes in sulcus depth the lesions were not. The x statistical test revealed
Thirty-eight patients had adequate preinsertion that no significant difference exists in the number of
data in their charts to allow determination of change carious lesions in contact with the framework and
in sulcus depth which occurred during the time those not in contact.
interval between the preinsertion date and the recall
appointment. Preinsertion sulcus depth averaged 2.5 OccIusal rests
mm (SD = 0.53 mm). Sulcus depth at the recall Twenty-one of the 53 removable partial dentures
appointment averaged 2.3 mm (SD = 0.53 mm). did not have occlusal rests, representing 39.6% of the
This small reduction in sulcus depth was not statis- removable partial dentures examined. A clinical
tically significant. judgement of severe tissue impingement by the
Sulcus depth recordings were made for 48 patients framework was made for three patients (5.6%). The
at the recall appointment. These patients were removable partial denture in all of these severe tissue
divided into three groups relative to the length of impingement recordings did not have occlusai
time the swinglock removable partial denture had rests.
been in service. The mean sulcus depth of these
groups was tabulated (Fig. 5). GeneA patient satisfaction
The mean sulcus depth did not differ significantly Results of the patient satisfaction questiormaires
in these three groups of patients who had worn are summarized in Table II. None of the patients
swinglock removable partial dentures for various reported poor overall satisfaction, 6.1% rated their
lengths of time. In addition to no difference in mean removable partial dentures as fair, and 63.3% of the

600 DECEMBER1960 VOLUh4E41 IJUMBER6

SWINGLOCK REMOVABLE PARTIAL DENTURES
patients rated their removable partial dentures as
excellent in overall satisfaction. The category with
the highest percentage of excellent responses was for
ease of insertion and removal (81.6%), and the lowest
percentage of excellent responses was for comfort
(49%). Of a total 342 responses in all categories, 323
(94.5%) were rated excellent or good, and 19 (4.5%)
were rated fair or poor. Three of the four patients
who were not wearing their removable partial den-
tures accounted for the three poor responses in the
categories of comfort, esthetic quality, and accept-
ability of the labial bar.
Oral hygiene level
The average gingival index score for all patients
was 0.86 (SD = 0.59), the Silness-Loe plaque index
was 0.82 (SD = 0.50).
Miscellaneous findings
The retentive I bars produced slight wear on 10
teeth in two patients. Severe wear was recorded for
seven teeth which were all in one patient. Of the 10
teeth with slight wear, four I bars were in contact
with composite restorative material, and six were in
contact with cementum. The severe wear occurred
on enamel, dentin, cementum, and amalgam fillings.
No cause for this severe wear could be established.
Based on a clinical judgement of retention, sup-
port, and stability, 14 removable partial dentures
required relines at the recall appointment, repre-
senting 28.5% of the total number examined. These
removable partial dentures were in service an aver-
age of 36.9 months.
Four removable partial dentures required repair of
the framework prior to recall examination. Of these
four, two of the partial dentures had fractured labial
bars and two had fractured I bars.
DISCUSSION
Similar studieP have produced conflicting results
on mobility of teeth in contact with a removable
partial denture. Carlsson et a1.6 found an increase in
tooth mobility in patients wearing a conventional
removable partial denture, whereas Derry and Ber-
tram7 found a decrease in tooth mobility. Schwalm
et al. reported no change in tooth mobility in
patients wearing a conventional removable partial
denture constructed at the University of Washing-
ton. The reduction in tooth mobility found in this
study, from an average of 1.1 to 0.5, was of a
magnitude much greater than the most favorable
response reported in these studies.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
The method of measuring tooth mobility, prepros-
thetic treatment, and prosthetic technique used to
treat patients in this study was the same as that used
in the study of Schwalm et al. While that study
reported no change in tooth mobility in patients
wearing a conventional removable partial denture,
this study found a decrease of 0.6 on the average in
patients wearing a swinglock removable partial den-
ture. It is difficult to attribute the decrease in tooth
mobility to the prosthesis, but given the proper
situation, the swinglock removable partial denture
may aid in tooth mobility reduction.
The average mobility of 0.5 found at the recall
appointment has more validity than the apparent
reduction in mobility recorded because all measure-
ments were made by the principal examiner. Consid-
ering that these patients have diminished periodon-
tal support, as evidenced by the 20% average bone
loss, the 0.5 average mobility is within clinically
acceptable levels. There does not appear to be a
relationship between increased tooth mobility scores
and the length of time the swinglock removable
partial dentures were worn (Fig. 4).
No increases in sulcus depth or bone loss were
found during the time the partial dentures were in
service. Considering this with the mobility reduction,
it is suggestive that these patients who have worn
swinglock removable partial dentures for periods of
13 to 75 months are not experiencing periodontal
breakdown.
Our group of patients had a Silness-Loe mean
plaque index of 0.82 (SD = 0.59) and a mean
gingival index of 0.86 (SD = 0.59).
In a previous study by Nyman et al., two groups
of patients were evaluated in reference to sulcus
depth changes, versus oral hygiene behavior, over a
2-year period. In one group, a 0.1 (SD = 0.04) mean
Silness-Loe plaque index and a 0.15 (SD = 0.04)
mean gingival index was maintained by 2-week
recalls for scaling and home care instruction. In a
second group, which received 6-month recalls for
scaling and oral hygiene instruction, a mean Silness-
Lee plaque index of 1.5 (SD = 0.14) and mean
gingival index of 1.7 (SD = 0.10) was noted. In the
group receiving biweekly prophylaxis, no change in
sulcus depth was noted; however, in the second
group, which received prophylaxis on a 6 month
basis, a progressive increase in sulcus depth was
reported. Our group of patients had a Silnes-Loe
plaque index and a gingival index midway between
those reported by Nyman et al. We found no
statistical significant changes in sulcus depth from
601
 SCHULTE AND SMITH

the preinsertion to recall period. These findings may though they had lost tissue support to the point of
indicate that plaque levels of 0.82 are within a requiring a reline. This, coupled with the high
biologically tolerable range, although a moderate prevalence of caries, again points to the need of
degree of periodontal inflammation is elicited by regular recall visits.
such plaque accumulation. One interesting finding of this study was the
At the recall examination, 22.4% of the patients accuracy of the bone loss measuring instrument. The
had one or more regions of active caries. This high technique, described by Schei et al.; requires good
prevalence of patients with caries represents a signif- radiographs and strict conformance to the method of
icant problem. Thirty lesions were found in 327 use. Accuracy of 3% to 4% can be established, which
teeth, which is a 9.1% incidence. Schwalm et al. makes this instrument a viable research tool.
reported a 7.7% incidence in their study. Both studies
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
used the same method of evaluation for caries which
consisted of the use of a dental explorer and visual Fifty-three patients were recalled for clinical
and radiographic examination. examination to determine oral changes which
These findings regarding caries, emphasize the occurred during the time that they wore swinglock
need for regular recall appointments and preventive removable partial dentures. Pertinent findings were
measures tailored to the patients needs. Preventive as follows:
measures should consist of teaching the patient 1. The swinglock removable partial denture
proper use of the toothbrush, dental floss, and, where should be considered as a treatment alternative for
embrasures are large enough, the use of a Proxa- patients with unfavorable periodontal support and
brush.* In addition to improvement in home care for patients missing key abutments.
levels, a daily topical application of fluoride may 2. Patients who have worn swinglock removable
help. This application of fluoride could be done by partial dentures for periods of 13 to 75 months did
the patient with the aid of a custom-made polyvinyl not demonstrate a continued periodontal break-
tray. Toolson and Smith reported on caries control down, even when there was unfavorable periodontal
in overdenture teeth by the use of topical fluoride. support.
Their suggestion of 1.5% neutral ph NaF solution 3. The swinglock removable partial denture may
placed daily on overdenture abutments produced a aid in reducing tooth mobility when the patient can
significant reduction in caries on a longitudinal maintain good levels of oral hygiene to control
basis. inflammation and the dentist can provide a propel
Due to the recording of three severe tissue im- occlusion.
pingements by removable partial dentures not con- 4. As evidenced by responses to a satisfaction
taining rests, there appears to be an increased risk of questionnaire, patient acceptance of the swinglock
tissue impingement if rests are not used, Therefore, design was good.
use of occlusal rests is suggested. An attempt should 5. The high prevalence of patients reporting foi
be made to place the occlusal rests as far forward in recall examination with one or more decayed teeth
the arch as is possible to minimize torque on anterior (22.4%) and removable partial dentures requiring
teeth and maximize tissue support for the bases. relines (28.3%) emphasizes the need for proper recall
Wear of the teeth was not found to be a problem of patients.
when the retentive tip of the I bar was placed on 6. The swinglock removable partial denture will
enamel. The majority of removable partial dentures function satisfactorily if the dentist follows basic
in the study were constructed with that criteria. principles of removable partial denture construction
Relines were required for 28.3% of the removable and if the patient maintains a good level of oral
partial dentures at the time of the recall examina- hygiene and returns for regular recall visits.
tion. These removable partial dentures were in
service an average of 36.9 months. The mean mobil-
ity scores for these patients was 0.37% and the mean REFERENCES
SU~CUS depth was 2.2 mm. It appears that the I. Simmons, J. J.: Swinglock stabilization and retention. Texas
swinglock removable partial dentures were not caus- Dent J 81:10, 1963.
ing serious destruction in periodontal support even 2. Sprigg, R. H.: Six-year clinical evaluation of the swinglock
xxnovable partial denture. J Anglo Continental Dent Sot
25:15, 1971.
*John 0. Butler Co., Chicago, IL. 3. Schei, O., Waerhaug, J., Lovedal, A., and Amo, A.: Alveolar

602 DECEMBER 1980 VOLUME &I NUMBER 6

SWINGLOCK REMOVABLE PARTIAL DENTURES

bone loss as related to oral hygiene and age. J Periodontol study of patients one to two years after placement of
30:7, 1959. removable partial dentures. J PROWHET DENT 38:380,
4. Silness, J., and Loe, H.: Periodontal disease in pregnancy, II, 1977.
Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. 9. Nyman, S., Rosling, B., and Lindhe, J.: Effect of professional
Acta Odontol Stand 22:121, 1964. tooth cleaning on healing after periodontal surgery. J Clin
5. Loe, H., and Silness, J.: Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I, Periodontol 2:67, 1975.
Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Stand 21:533, 10. Toolson, L. B., and Smith, D. E.: A two-year longitudinal
1963. study of overdenture patients. J PROSTHET DENT (to be
6. Carlson G. E., Hedegard, B., and Koivumaa, K. K.: Studies published).
in partial dental prosthesis. IV. Final results of a 4-year
longitudinal investigation of dentogingivally supported par-
Reprint requeststo:
DR. JOHN K. SCHULTE
tical dentures. Acta Odontol Stand 23:443, 1965.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
7. Derry, A., and Bertram, U.: A clinical survey of removable
SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY
partial dentures after two-years usage. Acta Odontol Stand
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455
28:5ai, 1970.
a. Schwalm, C. A., Smith D. E., and Erickson, J. D.: A clinical

ARTICLES TO APPEAR IN FUTURE ISSUES

Swinglock removable partial dentures: Where and when

Charles L. Bolender, D.D.S., MS., and Curtis M. Becker, D.D.S., M.S.D.

Comparison of elastomeric impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics

James N. Ciesco, D.D.S., M.S., William F. P. Malone, D.D.S., Ph.D., James L. Sandrik, Ph.D.,
and Boleslaw Mazur, D.D.S., MS.

In vitro analysis of shelf-shearing retentive pins

E. W. Collard, D.D.S., M.S., A. A. Caputo, Ph.D., J. P. Standlee, D.D.S., and M. G.
Duncanson, Jr., D.D.S., Ph.D.

Evaluation of two methods for assessing marginal leakage

Gary A. Crim, D.M.D., and Stephen L. Mattingly, D.M.D.

Treatment of alar collapse with nasal prostheses

John C. Davenport, Ph.D., F.D.S.R.C.S., David J. Brain, M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.S., D.L.O., and
Alan T. Hunt

Intercuspal contacts of the natural dentition in centric occlusion

Jacob Ehrlich, D.M.D., and Shlomo Taicher, D.M.D.

The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and
occlusal seat of full crown preparations
J. R. Gavelis, D.M.D., J. D. Morency, D.M.D., E. D. Riley, D.M.D., and R. B. Sozio, D.M.D.

m JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 603