Interdisciplinary Management Of Maxillary Lateral Incisors Agenesis With Mini Implant Prostheses: A Case Report

Article (PDF Available)inIOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences · December 2015with 1,466 Reads 
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
DOI: 10.9790/0853-141283642
Cite this publication
Abstract
Orthodontic management for patients with single or bilateral congenitally missing permanent lateral incisors is a challenge to effective treatment planning. Over the last several decades, dentistry has focused on several treatment modalities for replacement of missing teeth. The two major alternative treatment options are orthodontic space closure or space opening for prosthetic replacements. For patients with high aesthetic expectations implants are one of the treatment of choices, especially when it comes to replacement of missing maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors. Edentulous areas where the available bone is compromised to use conventional implants with 2,5 mm or more in diameter, narrow diameter implants with less than 2,5 mm diameter can be successfully used. This case report deals with managing a compromised situation in the region of maxillary lateral incisor using a narrow diameter implant. Key words: Orthodontics, Correction of unilateral missing maxillary lateral incisors. Minimal invasive technique, narrow diameter implant
Unilateral Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis with Mini Implant
Prostheses: A Case Report
Azzaldeen A, Nikos K, Georgos C and Abu-Hussein M*
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, FICD 123Argus Street, 10441 Athens, Greece
*Corresponding author: Abu-Hussein M, MDent Sci (PaedDent), FICD 123Argus Street, 10441 Athens, Greece, Tel: +65 6324 8802; E-mail:
abuhusseinmuhamad@gmail.com
Received date: December 18, 2015, Accepted date: February 17, 2016, Published date: March 15, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Abu-Hussein M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Orthodontic management for patients with single or bilateral congenitally missing permanent lateral incisors is a
challenge to effective treatment planning. Over the last several decades, dentistry has focused on several treatment
modalities for replacement of missing teeth. The two major alternative treatment options are orthodontic space
closure or space opening for prosthetic replacements. For patients with high aesthetic expectations implants are one
of the treatment of choices, especially when it comes to replacement of missing maxillary lateral incisors and
mandibular incisors. Edentulous areas where the available bone is compromised to use conventional implants with
2.5 mm or more in diameter, narrow diameter implants with less than 2.5 mm diameter can be successfully used.
This case report deals with managing a compromised situation in the region of maxillary lateral incisor using a
narrow diameter implant.
Keywords Orthodontics; Correction of unilateral missing maxillary
lateral incisors; Minimal invasive technique; Narrow diameter implant
Introduction
Many terms can be used to describe missing teeth. Anodontia is the
complete absence of teeth; Oligodontia or partial anodontia means
absence of six or more teeth; hypodontia denotes missing teeth, but
usually less than six and oen the size and shape of remaining teeth are
altered as well, congenitally missing teeth or agenesis is dened as teeth
that failed to develop or are not present at birth. Agenesis of any tooth
can cause dental asymmetries, alignment diculties, and arch length
discrepancies but when the missing tooth is in the anterior region of
the maxilla, the discrepancies can be quite noticeable [1,2].
e maxillary lateral incisor is the second most frequently missing
tooth aer the mandibular second premolar even though Muller et al.
found that maxillary lateral incisors experience the most agenesis (not
including third molars). Agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor is also
linked with anomalies and syndromes such as agenesis of other
permanent teeth, microdontia of maxillary lateral incisors (peg
laterals), palatally displaced canines and distal angulations of
mandibular second premolars [3].
Absence of any tooth can cause treatment diculties, but agenesis
of the maxillary lateral incisor poses a unique set of restorative
challenges. Because the maxillary lateral incisor is located in the
esthetic zone, it is essential that bone height, papilla height, enamel
color, and shape match the surrounding teeth. Clinicians attempt to
maintain the proper anterior overbite, overjet and ideal interarch
relationships of the canine teeth while creating enough space for a
xed partial denture or more commonly, an implant with a single
crown restoration, but few treatment options are available for patients
with agenesis of one or both maxillary lateral incisors. One option is to
close the space(s) and restore the remaining teeth accordingly and the
second is to open the space for a xed partial denture or implant [4,5].
Kokich believes that canine substitution can be an excellent option
for some patients, especially if they are Angle Class II with excessive
overjet or are Class I with enough crowding in the mandibular arch to
warrant extractions. e prole of the patients is another factor to
consider. Protrusive faces are oen more esthetically conducive for
canine substitution than creating space for an implant by proclining
the incisors and potentially making the lips more protrusive. e color
and shape of the canines also needs to be taken into account before
choosing this as the best option for treatment. If the canines are overly
bulky or more yellow in hue than the central incisors, they may need
bleaching, enameloplasty or restoration before treatment is complete
[6-8].
One prosthetic option for replacing the missing lateral incisor is a
resin bonded (Maryland) bridge, cantilevered bridge, or full-coverage
bridge. Some benets to these restorations include being less invasive
than an implant, they can be completed in a growing individual, and
there is more freedom with the space requirements when compared to
the minimum of 6 mm required for an implant. Kokich reports that
the resin bonded bridge is especially conservative since the
preparations are only on the lingual of the incisors when compared to
the full coverage abutments of a traditional bridge. A cantilevered
bridge is the second most conservative option, followed by the full-
coverage bridge. Mobility of the abutment teeth, angulations of the
incisors, gingival contours and occlusion are all factors to take into
account before choosing one of these treatments for a patient [3,4,7,8].
Replacing the missing lateral incisor with an implant is another
prosthetic alternative to closing the space. Kokich states that the
smallest implant for this site is about 3.2 mm in diameter and
recommends having at least 1 mm of bone between the implant and
adjacent tooth. erefore, the implant alone requires at least 5.2 mm of
space and with the restoration of the crown at least 6 mm of space in
required. Frequently, clinicians cannot maintain the proper occlusion
and create a minimum of 6 mm of space for an implant. Kokich [7]
advises the interproximal reduction of the central incisors, canines, or
Dental Implants and Dentures: Open
Access
Abu-Hussein et al., Dent Implants Dentures 2016,
1:1
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/did.1000106
Case Report Open Access
Dent Implants Dentures
ISSN: DID, an open access journal Volume 1 • Issue 1 • 1000106
premolars to create enough space for an implant when this situation
arises. More recently, he recommended only slenderizing teeth distal to
the canines so as not to adversely aect anterior papillae in the esthetic
zone [6-8].
Brook et al. have shown that some genes are implicated in the
agenesis of teeth, including PAX9, MSX1 and AXIN2. e PAX9 gene
is on chromosome with a controlling factor for dental development
and mutations related to missing teeth. Brook et al. [9] measured the
tooth sizes on maxillary and mandibular dental casts in the test group,
10 people with a known PAX9 mutation in one family and 10 people in
a control group matched for sex, age and ethnicity, who were not
related to the test group and did not have the PAX9 mutation.
Dierences in the test group with the mutation and hyperdontia were
found; these teeth were signicantly smaller than controls. Canines
and rst molars were least aected in the test group [10,11]. is
contradicts Bailit’s theory that genetics mostly aects the rst tooth in
each group: the central incisor, canine, rst premolar and molar
[10,11]. Brook et al. [12] found that the second tooth in each group
was more aected by the PAX9 mutation. e study concluded that the
PAX9 mutation not only decreased tooth number, but also tooth’s size
throughout the dentition. Large role in tooth size and agenesis with the
PAX9 and MSX1 mutations; however some authors suspect that the
local environment is important factor. EGF, EGFR, FGF-3 and FGF-4
are not shown to be linked to incisor-premolar agenesis, but it is
possible that signaling factors early in embryologic development may
contribute to agenesis [10]. rough the work of Pirinen et al. and Arte
et al. it is evident that incisor premolar hypodontia is genetically
inherited, with strong links to other dental anomalies such as palatally
impacted canines. Incisor-premolar hypodontia is an autosomal
dominant gene inheritance with incomplete penetrance [9,12].
e incidence of congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors has
been reported to range from between 1% and 2% 1 to as high as 5%.
Maxillary lateral incisors are the most common congenitally missing
teeth aer upper and lower second premolars. Sex dierences have
been found to be negligible, with slightly more females aected as
compared with males. Treatment options include orthodontic
movement of cuspids into lateral incisor sites, prosthodontics
restorations including xed and removable prostheses and resin-
bonded retainers, and single tooth implants [10].
Implants do not require preparation of natural teeth and thus can be
considered the most conservative approach. Orthodontic space
opening may be necessary but on occasion can compromise esthetics,
periodontal health, and function [1,2,4,5]. Parents and professionals
must oen decide at a child’s early age on how to cope with
congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. Orthodontic treatment
to create space for implants should not be initiated before the age of 13.
is will avoid the potential for alveolar bone atrophy and the risk of
relapse and subsequent retreatment [4,5].
e management of small restorative areas in the esthetic zone has
posed signicant problems for the implant and restorative team. e
lack of bone available for the surgeon as well as the lack of restorative
space available between the adjacent teeth makes tooth replacement
with implants challenging for both the restorative dentist and the
laboratory technician. In the past, patients with congenitally missing
teeth or microdontia have been treated with resin-bonded bridges,
removable retainers, or cantilever crowns to avoid the use of standard-
diameter implants and prosthetics in this area [1,5].
e two common treatment options include orthodontic space
opening for future restorations or orthodontic space closure utilizing
the adjacent permanent canine teeth. With a paradigm shi in the
patient expectations towards functional as well as esthetically
appealing replacements for edentulous, the implant based oral
rehabilitation has emerged as a sole winner in fullling all aspects of
patient needs [1,2,4,5].
e orthodontist plays a key role in determining and establishing
space requirements for patients with congenitally missing maxillary
lateral incisors .However, the implant based treatment option in such
patients requires an interactive and interdisciplinary management
approach. is interdisciplinary approach may involve preprosthetic
orthodontic treatment following consultations with an oral surgeon or
periodontist and restorative dentist to ensure orthodontic alignment
will facilitate the surgical, implant and restorative treatment.
Too oen, surgeons attempting to place standard-diameter implants
have forced the restorative team to manage these small dimensions
with a lack of adequate prosthetics because of the size and diameter of
the xture head. In addition, surgical complications, such as contact
with the adjacent roots, dehiscences of the labial plate, or the “show
through of the titanium through thin so tissues, has posed a
signicant complication risk when attempting to use implants for
tooth replacement in these situations.
Recently, manufacturers in the implant industry have oered a 3-
mm diameter implant design to address these challenges. Most of the
implants available in the 3-mm size have been one-piece or unibody
implants, which oen necessitate conventional tooth-preparation
techniques by the restorative team as well as standard cord-impression
techniques for indexing the restorative margins. With some systems,
there is no need for preparation due to a cervical marginal collar that
can be captured utilizing a snap-in impression transfer. is case
report deals with managing a compromised situation in the region of
maxillary lateral incisor using a narrow diameter implant.
Methods and Materials
A 15 years old Arab girl was seen in private orthodontic clinic in
Israel. She was an intelligent, college student, co-operative, and
conscientious about her oral health and aesthetics. e patient was
undergoing an active treatment of orthodontic treatment for past
years, the aim of which was to close the residual space between her
upper anterior teeth. Examination revealed good facial symmetry
prole complicated by the presence of class I malocclusion. e patient
was in permanent dentition with unilateral congenitally missing
maxillary lateral incisors and retained deciduous lateral incisors. e
maxillary arch presented with spacing between anterior teeth and in
addition there was minor crowding of lower arch (Figure 1).
Objectives of the orthodontic treatment were:
To provide adequate space for restoration of missing lateral
incisors.
Closure of residual spaces in the upper jaw.
Correction of the crowding of lower anterior using edge wise
brackets (non-extraction)
A multidisciplinary approach was discussed which included the
patient, orthodontist, oral surgeon, restorative dentist and dental
technician and following treatment plan was agreed upon as a team:
Citation: Azzaldeen A, Nikos K, Georgos C, Abu-Hussein M (2016) Unilateral Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis with Mini Implant Prostheses: A
Case Report. Dent Implants Dentures 1: 106. doi:10.4172/did.1000106
Page 2 of 5
Dent Implants Dentures
ISSN: DID, an open access journal Volume 1 • Issue 1 • 1000106
To wait for a year to have complete bone healing prior to
placement an implant.
To restore the maxillary with lateral incisor implant supported
crown.
Figure 1: (a) Missing #10. Short clinical crown #7.Diastema between
#9 and 11 (b) Pre-op periapical radiograph. #9 angled slightly
distally, #11 slightly mesially.
e patient is a 17 yrs. old female with congenitally missing le
lateral incisor. She just recently completed 2 years of orthodontic
therapy. She was tted with a retainer with 22 teeth on the retainer.
Orthodontic treatment was only able to provide for 4 mm between the
upper le central incisor and the upper le cuspid. e patient was
referred to my oce for consultation for implant therapy (Figure 2).
Figure 2: (a) 1.4 pilot drill(b) Reangulated pilot drill(c) 2.5 x 16
Intralock MDL in place - checking orientation again before
placement into nal position.
Aer preliminary investigations and thorough medical history
patient was selected suitable for implant placement. e mesio-distal
width of available alveolar bone between the maxillary right central
incisor and maxillary right canine was 4 mm through the radiographic
analysis. Single piece 2.5 × 16 mm implant was selected according to
the bone width available. Prophylactic antibiotic regimen was started
one day prior to the implant placement. Aer following the
disinfection protocol, an inltration of local anesthesia (Xylocaine 2%
Adrenalin 1:200000) was administered in the labial vestibular region,
in the region of missing tooth and a full thickness ap was raised. e
labio-palatal alveolar bone diameter was conrmed as 4 mm using
Osseo meter. en pilot drill was made at implant site using 2 mm
pilot drill to the required full depth and no sequential drill was used as
the proposed implant diameter was 2.5 mm. By maintaining torque at
35N, using motor driven implant hand piece, implant was inserted into
the prepared site. e ap was sutured back and hemostasis was
achieved. e implant abutment was checked for any interference and
is ve day antibiotic protocol was followed. Aer the primary so
tissue closure around the implant impressions was recorded,
temporary crown was fabricated and luted using non-eugenol cement.
Nonfunctional immediate loading protocol was followed and all the
contacts and interferences were removed (Figure 3).
Figure 3: (a) Post-op photograph of implant and gingivectomy (b)
Final periapical of implant in position.
Results
e implant was allowed to Osseo integrate for a period of 6
months, and a nal impression was made using putty wash technique
and a nal prosthesis was fabricated. Prosthesis was tried in patient
mouth and aer checking the esthetics, the prosthesis was luted with
GIC type 1 luting cement. Excellent esthetics and emergence prole
were obtained through this technique (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Post-op crown cemented with temp cement Patient is
scheduled in 2 weeks for follow up.
Discussion
Small diameter implants provides advantages for the patients those
normally would have preceded with a xed or resin-bonded prosthesis
with preparation and/or reduction of the adjacent natural dentition.
Implants help in preserving the leover alveolar ridge in the area of
missing tooth and reduction of natural tooth structure as in the case of
tooth supported xed dentures can be avoided. In our case the mesio-
distal diameter of alveolar bone is around 4 mm which is a dicult
situation for placing the conventional implant [13].
Regular implant systems usually have 3.0 mm as their starting
diameter. But 3.0 mm implant can't be placed in this situation due to
lack of alveolar bone width. According to Carl E Mish, aer placing the
implant minimum of 1.0 mm bone should be present around the
implant. As the available bone is only 4 mm, in this compromised mm
situation, a 2.5 mm diameter implant is selected and successfully
Citation: Azzaldeen A, Nikos K, Georgos C, Abu-Hussein M (2016) Unilateral Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis with Mini Implant Prostheses: A
Case Report. Dent Implants Dentures 1: 106. doi:10.4172/did.1000106
Page 3 of 5
Dent Implants Dentures
ISSN: DID, an open access journal Volume 1 • Issue 1 • 1000106
placed. So by placing narrow diameter implants we preserve not only
the remaining alveolar bone from resorptions but also help in
achieving optimal esthetics [14].
One of the most dicult areas for implant reconstruction has been
the anterior maxilla, or what is known as the “esthetic zone. Improved
technology involving the surface of the implant body, abutment
connection and prosthetic reconstruction of implants provided
successful Osseo integration with raised possibility of totally
mimicking the esthetics and function of natural teeth at this area [15].
In the early implantation the treatment protocol was to follow a two
stage implantation to secure full Osseo integration before loading
machined surfaced implants, where it achieved over 81% success rate
in 15 years [5]. To advocating Load free Osseo integration, transitional
implantation had been developed. Transitional implants were designed
with smaller diameter of near 2 mm at various lengths. Mainly as
abutments for interim over denture and loading were placed
immediately aer implantation until the denitive prosthesis were
delivered. On histological and clinical evaluation have revealed that
successful Osseo integration was observed in immediately loaded
transitional implants [16].
Degidi et al. [17] did a 3 year randomized clinical trial on
immediate versus one stage restoration of small diameter implants for
a single missing maxillary lateral incisor and concluded that in the
rehabilitation of a single missing maxillary lateral incisor, no
statistically signicant dierence was assessed between immediately
and one-stage restored small-diameter implants with regard to implant
survival, mean marginal bone loss and probing depth. 3.0 mm
diameter implants proved to be a predictable treatment option in their
test and control groups when strict clinical protocol was followed.
Dong-Seok et al. [18] did a retrospective multicenter analysis of
immediate provisionalization using one-piece narrow-diameter (3.0
mm) implants and concluded that for missing maxillary lateral incisors
and mandibular incisors with compromised labio-lingual and mesio-
distal available bone, one piece narrow diameter implants could be
used successfully.
Anitha et al. [19] did a pilot study of mini implants as a treatment
option for prosthetic rehabilitation of ridges with sub-optimal bone
volume and concluded that failure rate of mini implants placed to
replace single missing tooth was low and narrow diameter implants
could be used in clinical situations in which available bone volumes
did not permit placement of conventional implants.
Azfar et al. [20] used mini implants for replacement and immediate
loading of two single-tooth restorations and concluded that mini
implants were indicated for areas where the use of narrow diameter
implants (3.0 mm) were contraindicated. Until long-term longitudinal
clinical data on mini dental implants are available, their use should be
limited to areas with potentially less occlusal load.
Reddy et al. [21] studied initial clinical ecacy of 3 mm implants
immediately placed into function in conditions of limited spacing and
concluded that in the areas of compromised bone spaces single piece
immediately loaded narrow diameter implants could be used for
predictable success.
Selection of the patients, correct surgical techniques, suitable
implant design, complete understanding of the concepts of occlusion
and the correct timing of implant placement are mandatory for
optimum outcomes Bone growth with complete dent alveolar and
facial growth should be completed before implant insertion. It takes
place in males around the age of 21 while in females it occurs at age of
16 years. is coincides with the selected age range of the subjects
included in this study. e females selected were older than 16 years
while the males were between 21 and 23 years [22,23].
Another study using four to six Midi one-piece implants in the
maxilla to support maxillary over dentures proved that it was ideal for
most types of bone qualities, quantities and for atrophic ridges. e
study reported that it is a reliable and cost eective treatment option
that brings secure dentures within the reach of many patients, who are
medically or nancially compromised contributing to a higher degree
of implant treatment acceptance due to less discomfort and generally
shorter treatment times [24].
Dierent studies recommended that placement of the implants
should be done aer completing the orthodontic treatment and ending
the retention period in order to achieve so and hard tissue
stabilization [25].
In a study by Van de et al. [26] on immediately loaded one-piece
implants, only three of 12 implants were considered successful,
showing a bone loss of 1.7 mm aer two years of function.
e mean peri-implant marginal bone loss was 2.1 mm aer one
year. A mean bone loss of 1.6 mm aer 12 months of loading of MDIs
(3 mm) placed in the maxillary lateral and mandibular incisor area was
observed, while 18% of the implants showed more than 3 mm of bone
loss [27].
Sohn et al. [18] reported that mean marginal bone loss aer 12
months of loading was 0.53 ± 0.37 mm [18]. In a study involving 115
one-piece implants, a failure rate of 5.2% due to excessive marginal
bone loss was observed [28].
Proussaefs and Lozada [29] reported that the mean marginal bone
loss of immediately loaded two-piece single-tooth implants was 1.05
mm aer 12 months of loading.
In mesio-distal bone width compromised cases when all the factors
are favorable, narrow diameter implant is the ideal choice for
replacement of maxillary lateral incisor for achieving better esthetics as
shown in our case. e long term success rate of these implants with
various loading protocols has been assessed and the success rates of
these implants were encouraging.
Conclusion
Planning for space management is best carried out before initiating
orthodontic treatment. e time of implantation should be close to the
end of orthodontic treatment. As opposed to starting orthodontic
space closure early, orthodontic space opening before implantation
should be started late. Finally, the importance of interdisciplinary team
treatment planning is emphasized as a requirement for achieving
optimal nal esthetics.
References
1. Abu-Hussein M, Abdulgani A, Watted N, Zahalka M (2015) Congenitally
Missing Lateral Incisor with Orthodontics, Bone Graing and Single-
Tooth Implant: A Case Report. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences
14: 124-130.
2. Abu-Hussein M, Watted N, Abdulgani A, Bajali M (2014) Treatment of
Patients With Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors: Is an
Interdisciplinary Task. 2: 53-68.
Citation: Azzaldeen A, Nikos K, Georgos C, Abu-Hussein M (2016) Unilateral Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis with Mini Implant Prostheses: A
Case Report. Dent Implants Dentures 1: 106. doi:10.4172/did.1000106
Page 4 of 5
Dent Implants Dentures
ISSN: DID, an open access journal Volume 1 • Issue 1 • 1000106
3. Muller TP, Hill IN, Peterson AC, Blayney JR (1970) A survey of
congenitally missing permanent teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 81:101-107.
4. Abu-Hussein M, Abdulgani A, Watted N, Zahalka M (2015) Management
of Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors with Orthodontics and Single-
Tooth Implants (A Case Report: Aer One Year Clinical Follow-Up)
JMSCR 3: 5011-5019.
5. Abu-Hussein M, Watted N, Abdulgani A, BorbélyB (2015) Modern
Treatment for Congenitally Missing Teeth : A Multidisciplinary
Approach. International Journal of Maxillofacial Research 1: 179-190.
6. Kokich VO Jr, Kinzer GA (2005) Managing congenitally missing lateral
incisors PartII: Tooth-supported restorations. J. Esthet Restor Dent
17:76-84.
7. Kokich VG (2004) Maxillary lateral incisor implants: planning with the
aid of orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62: 48-56.
8. Kokich VO Jr, Kinzer GA (2005) Managing congenitally missing lateral
incisors Part III: Single-tooth implants. J Esthet Restor Dent 17: 202-210.
9. Brook AH, Elcock C, Aggarwal M, Lath DL, Russell JM, et al. (2008)
Tooth dimensions in hypodontia with a known PAX9 mutation. Archives
of Oral Biol 54: S57-62.
10. Abu-Hussein M, Watted N, Yehia M, Pro P, Iraqi F, et al. (2015) Clinical
Genetic Basis of Tooth Agenesis. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences
14: 68-77.
11. Vastardis H (2000) e genetics of human tooth agenesis: new discoveries
for understanding dental anomalies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
117: 650-656.
12. Brook AH, Elcock C, al-Sharood MH, McKeown HF, Khalaf K, et al.
(2002) Further studies of a model of the etiology of anomalies of tooth
number and size in humans. Connective Tissue Res 43: 289-295.
13. Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, Mericske- Stern R (2004) Clinical
evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 19: 92-99.
14. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, et al.
(2008) Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress
of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent
17: 5-15.
15. Wheeler SL (2007) Implant complications in the esthetic zone. J Oral
Maxillofac. Surg Suppl 1 65: 93-102.
16. Proussaefs P (2003) Histologic evaluation of an immediately loaded
titanium provisional implant retrieved aer functioning for 18 months: A
clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 89: 331-334.
17. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A (2009). Immediate versus one-stage
restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary
lateral incisor: a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Journal of
Periodontology 80: 1393-1398.
18. Sohn DS, Bae MS, Heo JU, Park JS, Yea SH, et al. (2011) Retrospective
Multicenter Analysis of Immediate Provisionalization Using One-Piece
Narrow- Diameter (3.0-mm) Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:
163-168.
19. Anitha B, Jumshad BM, Kathiresan R (2010) A Pilot Study of Mini
Implants as a Treatment Option for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Ridges
with Sub-Optimal Bone Volume. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg 9: 334-338.
20. Azfar AS, Mark S, Mark G (2006) Use of mini implants for replacement
and immediate loading of 2 single-tooth restorations: A Clinical Case
Report. Journal of Oral Implantology 32: 82-86.
21. Reddy MS, O'Neal SJ, Haigh S, Aponte-Wesson R, Geurs NC, et al. (2008)
Initial clinical ecacy of 3-mm implants immediately placed into
function in conditions of limited spacing. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
23: 281-288.
22. Kokich, OV, Kinzer GA, Janakievski J (2011) Congenitally missing
maxillary lateral incisors: Restorative replacement. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 139: 435-445.
23. Gumus HO, Hersek NI, Tuluoglu, Tasar F (2008) Management of
Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors with Orthodontics and Single-
Tooth Implants: Two case Reports. Dental Research Journal 5: 37-40.
24. Zahran A, Darhous M, Sherien M, El-Nimr T, Mostafa B, et al. (2010)
Evaluation of Conical Selapping One-piece Implants for Immediate
Loading of Maxillary Overdentures. Journal of American Science 6:
1774-1781.
25. Krassnig M, Fickl S (2011) Congenitally missing lateral incisors- A
comparison between restorative, implant, and orthodontic approaches.
Dent Clin N Am 55: 283-299.
26. Van de VT, evissen E, Persson GR, Johansson C, De Bruyn H, et al.
(2009) Two-year outcome with Nobel Direct implants: a retrospective
radiographic and microbiologic study in 10 patients. Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res 11:183-193.
27. Zembic A, Johannesen LH, Schou S, Malo P, Reichert T, et al. (2012)
Immediately restored one-piece single-tooth implants with reduced
diameter: one-year results of a multi-center study. Clin Oral Implants Res
23: 49-54.
28. Ostman PO, Hellman M, Albrektsson T, Sennerby L (2007) Direct
loading of Nobel Direct and Nobel Perfect one-piece implants: a 1-year
prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:
409-418.
29. Proussaefs P, Lozada J (2004) Immediate loading of hydroxyapatite-
coated implants in the maxillary premolar area: three-year results of a
pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 91: 228-233.
Citation: Azzaldeen A, Nikos K, Georgos C, Abu-Hussein M (2016) Unilateral Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis with Mini Implant Prostheses: A
Case Report. Dent Implants Dentures 1: 106. doi:10.4172/did.1000106
Page 5 of 5
Dent Implants Dentures
ISSN: DID, an open access journal Volume 1 • Issue 1 • 1000106
  • ... Gingivally, the embrasures should be filled with the papillary tissue; but if the interdental papilla is absent, an unesthetic dark triangle occurs. [10,11,12] The shape of an individual"s anterior teeth varies enough to influence dental esthetics. Anderson (2005) researched the different tooth shapes of male and female patients. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan. The available treatment modalities to replace congenitally missing teeth include prosthodontic fixed and removable prostheses, resin bonded retainers, orthodontic movement of maxillary canine to the lateral incisor site and single tooth implants. This article reports the case of a patient with bilateral hypodontia of the maxillary lateral incisors who was dissatisfied with the outcome of initial orthodontic treatment, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary interaction among Restorative Dentistry, Orthodontics, and Implantology to achieve satisfactory esthetics and functional results.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    In dentistry treatment of difficult cases may be accomplished using an interdisciplinary approach. This article describes the orthodontic treatment in a female patient (12-years old) which was diagnosed with congenitally missing of upper left lateral incisor and Angle's Class III malocclusion. The treatment plan was interdisciplinary using preprosthetic orthodontic treatment for facilitate the surgical, implant and restorative treatment. The treatment were favorable, fulfilled the patient expectation and improving facial esthetics and restoring the functions. This case demonstrates that an interdisciplinary team (orthodontist, dental surgeon, prosthodontist) is required for the successful treatment of the congenitally missing of lateral incisor to create ideal conditions for the insertion of the dental implant.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    In dentistry treatment of difficult cases may be accomplished using an interdisciplinary approach. This article describes the orthodontic treatment in a female patient (12-years old) which was diagnosed with congenitally missing of upper left lateral incisor and Angle's Class III malocclusion. The treatment plan was interdisciplinary using preprosthetic orthodontic treatment for facilitate the surgical, implant and restorative treatment. The treatment were favorable, fulfilled the patient expectation and improving facial esthetics and restoring the functions. This case demonstrates that an interdisciplinary team (orthodontist, dental surgeon, prosthodontist) is required for the successful treatment of the congenitally missing of lateral incisor to create ideal conditions for the insertion of the dental implant.
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Congenitally missing lateral incisors create an esthetic problem with specific orthodontic and prosthetic considerations.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] Selecting the appropriate treatment option depends on many factors, such us the malocclusion, the anterior relationship, specific space requirements, bone volume, root proximity, the condition of the adjacent teeth, and esthetic prediction mainly when the canine must be reshaped.[10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17] The aim of this paper is to address specific criteria for treatment options when replacing the agenesic lateral with either a single tooth implant or with tooth supported restorations, and to highlight the importance of interdisciplinary treatment planning to achieve optimal esthetics and long-term predictability. There are several treatment options for this anomaly: orthodontic space closure or orthodontic space opening followed by tooth supported restoration, or single tooth implant.[18,19,20,21,22,23] The space opening has been performed in two cases in order to replace the missing lateral by an implant supported crown. This treatment option could be managed in the first case and declined in the second one where the bone volume was insufficient, and bone graft was rejected. Clinical conditions were in favour of a mini invasive treatment option where the resin bonded bridge was performed. When, the canine is mesially positioned and needs to be reshaped, associated with several edentulous spaces and deep occlusion, full coverage fixed restorations is a suitable option.[24,25,26] A variety of prosthetic approaches is available from the least conservative to the non-invasive one.
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] The available treatment modalities to replace congenitally missing teeth include prosthodontic fixed and removable prostheses, resin bonded retainers, orthodontic movement of maxillary canine to the lateral incisor site and single toothimplants.[9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17] Dental implants offer a promising treatment option for placement of congenitally missing teeth. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed in these cases.[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] This presentation aims to present a case report of replacement of Uni / bilaterally congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors and right mandibular second premolar with dental implants.[1-26]
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    The successful use of dental implants to replace missing teeth has been one of the most “exciting and evolving areas of clinical dentistry” this decade.[1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7]At a time when esthetic dentistry has gained prominence, permanent prosthodontic solutions such as implants have become optimal esthetic treatment options.[1,2,8,9,10,11,12,13] While implants have expanded restorative treatment options, treatment planning has become more complex for the dental practitioner, and an interdisciplinary team approach is recommended.[2,4,13,14,15,16,17,18] This interdisciplinary approach may involve preprosthetic orthodontic treatment following consultations with an oral surgeon or periodontist and restorative dentist to ensure orthodontic alignment will facilitate the surgical, implant and restorative treatment.[2;,19,20,21,22,23,24,25] Aspects of orthodontic treatment required for implant restoration of congenitally missing lateral incisors are discussed.[1-25]
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. [1,2,3,4]Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan. [5,6,7]The available treatment modalities to replace congenitally missing teeth include prosthodontic fixed and removable prostheses, resin bonded retainers, orthodontic movement of maxillary canine to the lateral incisor site and single tooth implants. [1,2,8,9,10,11,12,13]Dental implants offer a promising treatment option for placement of congenitally missing teeth.[14,15,16,17,18,19,20] Interdisciplinary approach may be needed in these cases. This article aims to presentation a cases report of replacement of bi/unilaterally congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors with dental implants.[1-20]
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan.[1,2,3,4,5] Several treatment options exist for the replacement of congenitally missing lateral incisors.[6,7,8,9,10] These options include canine substitution, resin bonded fixed partial dentures, cantilevered fixed partial dentures, conventional fixed partial dentures and single tooth implants.[1-14] Depending on which treatment option is chosen, a specific criterion has to be addressed. Interdisciplinary treatment plays a vital role to achieve an excellent, esthetic result for a most predictable outcome. [15,16,17,18,19,20This presentation describes the therapeutic use of osseointegrated implants to replace congenitally missing upper lateral incisors. Highlighting the importance of the Orthodontic/Restorative interface.
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Agenesis, the absence of permanent teeth, is a common occurrence among dental patients. [1,2,3,4,5]The total incidence of tooth agenesis is about 4.2% among patients that are seeking orthodontic treatment and with the exception of third molars, the maxillary lateral incisors are the most common congenitally missing teeth with about a 2% incidence. [2,4,6,7,8,9,10]Esthetically correcting congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors is a common challenge that every orthodontist and dental team will face, and dentists must consider the treatment options that are most appropriate for each patient.[11,12,13,14,16] This presentation discusses factors in determining whether to close an open space or to open enough space for a prosthetic treatment for congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. Further, the importance of a total treatment approach using an interdisciplinary dental specialty team to maximize function, aesthetics, and oral health is discussed.[1-20]
  • Article
    Full-text available
    This paper describes the therapeutic use of osseointegrated implants to replacε congenitally missing upper lateral incisors. Highlighting the importance of the Orthodontic/Restorative interface.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Abstract: Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan. Several treatment options exist for the replacement of congenitally missing lateral incisors.This case report addresses the fundamental considerations related to replacement of a congenitally missing lateral incisor by a team approach.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Tooth agenesis is one of the most common congenital malformations in humans. Hypodontia can either occur as an isolated condition (non-syndromic hypodontia) or can be associated with a syndrome (syndromic hypodontia), highlighting the heterogeneity of the condition. Gene anomalies or mutations in MSX1, PAX9, AXIN2 and EDA genes, appear to be most critical during the development of tooth, leading to various forms of tooth agenesis and systemic features. The aim of this paper is to review the genetic basis of hypodontia and identify the genes that have been definitively implicated in the agenesis of human dentition. Key words: congenitally missing teeth, hypodontia, mechanisms, molecular genetics
  • Article
    Full-text available
    The maxillary lateral incisor is the second most common congenitally absent tooth. There are several treatment options for replacing the missing maxillary lateral incisor, including canine substitution, tooth-supported restoration, or single-tooth implant. Dental implants are an appropriate treatment option for replacing missing maxillary lateral incisor teeth in adolescents when their dental and skeletal development is complete. This case report presents the treatment of a patient with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors using dental implants. Finally, the importance of interdisciplinary team treatment planning is emphasized as a requirement for achieving optimal final esthetics.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan. The available treatment modalities to replace congenitally missing teeth include prosthodontic fixed and removable prostheses, resin bonded retainers, orthodontic movement of maxillary canine to the lateral incisor site and single tooth implants. Dental implants offer a promising treatment option for placement of congenitally missing teeth. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed in these cases. This article aims to present a case report of replacement of unilaterally congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors with dental implants.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    ABSTRACT Congenitally missing teeth are frequently presented to the dentist. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed for the proper treatment plan. The available treatment modalities to replace congenitally missing teeth include prosthodontic fixed and removable prostheses, resin bonded retainers, orthodontic movement of maxillary canine to the lateral incisor site and single tooth implants. Dental implants offer a promising treatment option for placement of congenitally missing teeth. Interdisciplinary approach may be needed in these cases. This article aims to present a case report of replacement of bilaterally congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors with dental implants.
  • Article
    The Nobel Direct® implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) was developed to minimize marginal bone resorption and to result in "soft tissue integration" for an optimized aesthetic outcome. However, conflicting results have been presented in the literature. The aim of this present study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic outcomes of Nobel Direct implants. Materials and Methods: Ten partially edentulous subjects without evidence of active periodontitis (mean age 55 years) received 12 Nobel Direct implants. Implants were loaded with single crowns after a healing period of 3 to 6 months. Treatment outcomes were assessed at month 24. Routine clinical assessments, intraoral radiographs, and microbiologic samplings were made. Histologic analysis of one failing implant and chemical spectroscopy around three unused implants was performed. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the evaluation of bone loss; otherwise, descriptive analysis was performed. Results: Implants were functionally loaded after 3 to 6 months. At 2 years, the mean bone loss of remaining implants was 2.0 mm (SD ± 1.1 mm; range: 0.0–3.4 mm). Three out of 12 implants with an early mean bone loss >3 mm were lost. The surviving implants showed increasing bone loss between 6 and 24 months (p = .028). Only 3 out of the 12 implants were considered successful and showed bone loss of
  • Article
    Three treatment options exist for the replacement of congenitally missing lateral incisors. They include canine substitution, a tooth-supported restoration, and a single-tooth implant. Selecting the appropriate treatment option depends on the malocclusion, anterior relationship, specific space requirements, and condition of the adjacent teeth. The ideal treatment is the most conservative option that satisfies individual esthetic and functional requirements. Today, the single-tooth implant has become one of the most common treatment alternatives for the replacement of missing teeth. This article closely examines the many interdisciplinary issues that arise when treatment planning the placement of single-tooth implants in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors. The specific criteria that must be evaluated illustrate the importance of an interdisciplinary treatment approach to achieve optimal esthetics and long-term predictability. This is the final article of a three-part series discussing the three treatment alternatives for replacing congenitally missing lateral incisors.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Implants are the latest development in the field of prothodontics, but still not widely used because of its expensive and its lengthier duration. Patients with ideal bone quantity and quality accommodate the conventional implants. The selection of the width of the implants has been widely speculated and the manufacturers have recently launched a series of 'mini' implants of narrower diameter. The long-term success rate of these narrow diameter implants, needs to be assessed. This 2 year retrospective study summarizes the recorded observations from 11 patients who received 2.4 mm diameter implants for single tooth restorations. One implant failed 10 months after loading. The success rate was 90.9%. The clinical evaluation of the peri implant mucosa using periodontal indices gave satisfying results for the implant-mucosa interfaces. The success rate of the mini implants of 90.9%, is encouraging and hence studies involving larger number patients can be undertaken to study the efficacy of this novel treatment plan.