A Case Against the Implant.

It is incumbent upon our profession to reevaluate our preference for routinely replacing a missing single maxillary incisor, especially a maxillary lateral incisor, with a dental implant in a young adult. The dental literature is replete with beautiful restorative results using implants in this area, but there is minimal discussion regarding the long-term consequences of this treatment. The maxillary lateral incisor is one of the most commonly missing teeth due to agenesis, and it is also one of the most common teeth to be lost due to trauma in the developing child.1 Therefore, the decision for replacement must be made with the long-term in mind, as these restorations are commonly placed between ages 18 and 21 and must serve the patient for many decades. There are several reasons that implants can be associated with complications or even fail, including the following: (1) Continued craniofacial growth, which has a predominant anterior and vertical component and has been shown to occur in the maxilla, resulting in the apparent submersion of the implant crown as the natural teeth move incisally in relation to the implant2,3-there is no evidence that this can be predicted, let alone how far into the future it may happen; (2) peri-implantitis, which has a patient-level prevalence estimate of nearly 25% according to the findings of a recent systematic review;4 (3) thinning and recession of the peri-implant mucosa due to poor implant placement, inadequate prosthetic management, and/or poor case selection, often resulting in compromised esthetics and a predisposition for the onset and progression of peri-implant diseases; and (4) mechanical failure of the implant, abutment screw, transmucosal abutment, and/or crown. Clinicians should also keep in mind that, once an implant is placed in the anterior maxilla, it precludes the possibility for palatal expansion in the adult patient because the space created by the expansion cannot be redistributed orthodontically. Canine substitution is one traditional method for replacement of the missing maxillary lateral incisor. It is still a viable option when the canine tooth has an acceptable shape and color, and the occlusion will not be compromised by the substitution.5 Additionally, the bonded single-wing zirconia bridge has become a primary treatment option.6 Zirconia has the strength of metal and beauty of porcelain, which makes it an ideal substrate for a bonded bridge. The literature has demonstrated the long-term success of this replacement option for the missing maxillary incisor.7 There are clearly many potential long-term disadvantages associated with replacing a single missing maxillary incisor with an implant in young adults. We should be prescribing the least-invasive treatment option for the replacement of these teeth. Therefore, when treatment-planning for a missing maxillary incisor in a young adult, alternatives to implant therapy-such as the bonded single-wing zirconia bridge and canine substitution-should be the primary treatment options. The implant should only be considered as a secondary treatment when the other options are not viable or have previously failed.

A 10-year-old boy with class II oligodontia treated with buccal fixed appliances and agenesis space closure of the four second premolars: Case report No. 230075 - Titularisation Collège Européen Orthodontie (CEO), European College of Orthodontics.

The patient presented in this case report is a 10-year-old boy with hyperdivergent skeletal Class II associated with familial genetic agenesis of the second premolars. The treatment plan chosen was to close the spaces of agenesis using a bimaxillary appliance fixed buccally. The advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option were discussed. The result was stable and made it possible to avoid an implant-prosthetic solution, which would undoubtedly have been more restrictive over time.

Evaluation of the aesthetics and clinical findings in patients with missing maxillary lateral incisors treated with a 10-year interval.

INTRODUCTION: The most common treatment approaches for patients missing maxillary lateral incisors are implant replacement (IT) and orthodontic space closure (SC). Treatment techniques change and improve over time, and it is of interest to know if improvements differ between the methods. AIM: To compare the aesthetic outcome and other clinical findings in patients with one or two missing maxillary lateral incisors who were treated with a 10-year difference in time, with either orthodontic space closure or implant replacement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 88 patients were included in the study. Forty-four patients treated between 2011 and 2018 were included as the latter cohort (LC). The LC was compared to the early cohort (EC; n = 44), treated between 2001 and 2008. A total of 132 teeth was analysed: 62 teeth in the EC (28 teeth in IT cases and 34 teeth in SC cases) and 70 teeth in the LC (34 teeth in IT cases and 36 teeth in SC cases). Long-term clinical and aesthetic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: An improvement over time was found in crown length, BoP, papilla, the inclination of incisors, and overall appearance in IT cases and in crown colour and overbite in SC cases. A deterioration over time was found in crown length and BoP among the SC cases. CONCLUSION: Among the IT cases, an improvement in outcomes was noted over time. When comparing SC cases the colour of the crown and overbite had improved, while crown length and BoP had deteriorated over time.

Orthodontic input in the management of hypodontia cases.

This article aims to give an overview of the part orthodontics plays in the management of hypodontia cases. Severity of hypodontia varies and some cases can be managed by orthodontics alone. The more complex cases benefit from multidisciplinary care with a combination of orthodontics and restorative treatment. This article sub-divides orthodontic involvement in hypodontia cases into three distinct phases, while providing clinical examples to highlight the management of a variety of cases ranging from simple to complex.

Restorative dentistry clinical decision-making for hypodontia: peg and missing lateral incisor teeth.

Peg-shaped and missing lateral incisor teeth are common features for patients affected by hypodontia. While improvements in dental appearance may be a strong motivating factor for these patients, providing dental treatment to improve the clinical condition and achieve an acceptable and stable outcome can be complex and lengthy.For patients affected by hypodontia, discussion and consideration of various approaches to their individual treatment are best achieved in a multidisciplinary team environment. This allows debate of options and joint agreement between at least orthodontic and restorative dentistry specialist colleagues, based largely on clinical factors, towards a treatment plan that is acceptable to the patient. As most patients with this lateral incisor form of hypodontia are initially treated as teenagers and young adults, there is also an understanding that treatment outcomes will have lifelong maintenance and resource implications to consider.This paper identifies and discusses the key clinical features that influence the treatment planning process for a patient with either missing or peg lateral incisor teeth. These will often involve consideration of whether to open or close the lateral incisor spaces and whether to restore or replace a peg lateral incisor tooth. The process should be patient-centred, evidence-based, and aim to minimise the lifelong treatment burden, retaining options for future maintenance and retreatment.

Restorative dentistry clinical decision-making for hypodontia: retained primary molars.

Primary molar teeth that are retained beyond their exfoliation pose a clinical decision-making challenge for dental teams. The retention of these teeth may be due to absence of a permanent successor. As a result, careful planning is required to determine if retention or extraction is necessary. This article aims to discuss the prevalence of retained primary molars, assessment and treatment planning considerations, from both orthodontic and restorative perspectives.

Restorative dentistry clinical decision-making for hypodontia: managing missing premolar teeth.

Hypodontia is a relatively common clinical condition and the second premolar tooth is the most common tooth that fails to develop (excluding third molars). For some patients, no treatment is required, as there is little, if any, consequence of the condition. For other patients, the missing teeth are part of a more complex dental presentation, requiring specialist dental management. This paper describes the clinical decision-making process and explores the options for managing this presentation of hypodontia.

The dental technician as a member of the hypodontia multidisciplinary team, with practical considerations for anterior restoration design.

Most patients seeking treatment for hypodontia will require prosthetic replacement of their missing teeth. This will be in the form of dentures, bridges and implant restorations. As these are created by one or more dental technicians who supports the clinical team, a close working relationship between these colleagues is likely to improve the quality of treatment outcome. This interaction will usually occur towards the end of the patient's treatment process, when definitive restorations are prescribed. However, appropriately trained and experienced dental technicians should be involved throughout the patient's treatment process as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team approach to effectively manage these patients.This paper describes the contribution of dental technicians to patient care with particular focus on communication between the restorative dentistry clinical team and the dental technician to improve the quality of anterior restorations. As missing maxillary lateral incisor teeth are a common presentation for this patient group, further technical detail relating to planning resin-bonded bridges for replacement of these teeth is included.

Restorative dentistry clinical decision-making for hypodontia: complex cases.

Hypodontia is a relatively common condition and patients will be seen by both general dental practitioners and specialist dental colleagues. Although hypodontia can be described as mild, moderate and severe, this does not directly correlate with the complexity of treatment required to provide an acceptable outcome. In addition, the complexity of treatment provided by one colleague in the multidisciplinary team may not be the same as for other colleagues.When treatment planning and delivering dental care for these patients, especially those with severe hypodontia, it is useful to recognise the factors that make their care complex and also to follow principles for multidisciplinary treatment planning.

Practical advice for successful clinical treatment with resin-bonded bridges.

Resin-bonded bridges are one of the main options for replacing missing teeth for hypodontia patients. This technique offers several advantages for these patients, who are often young, have unrestored abutment teeth, and have had tooth positions optimised by orthodontic treatment. However, the replacement of missing teeth can be challenging due to tooth positions and anomalies of abutment tooth shape and size.These patients are often young adults at the time of restoration, making the minimally invasive nature and predictable long-term success of resin-bonded bridges advantageous over other treatment methods.This paper in the hypodontia themed issue discusses the importance of case selection and gives practical advice for the design and provision of resin-bonded bridges.

A service evaluation of the multidisciplinary team approach to hypodontia.

Introduction Patients with hypodontia can be seen by a multidisciplinary team clinic (MDT) for treatment planning at the University Dental Hospital of Manchester (UDHM). The MDT consists of orthodontics, restorative dentistry and oral surgery colleagues.Aims and methods A retrospective case-note analysis was conducted on 558 hypodontia patients seen on Manchester Hypodontia Clinic (MHC) between 2016-2022 to assess service utilisation and treatment planning outcomes.Results The average age of patients attending the MHC was 16 (range 8-50). The distribution of mild, moderate and severe hypodontia in the sample was 28%, 37% and 35%, respectively. Most common treatments proposed were fixed appliances, extractions, implants and resin-bonded bridges. Out of 558 patients seen for consultation on the MHC, 365 (65%) were accepted for treatment. The average number of visits for treatment was 15.5 (range: 1-55). The average number of did not attend/was not brought appointments, patient cancellations and hospital cancellations were 0.8, 1.4 and 1.8, respectively.Conclusion Hypodontia patients referred to UDHM are triaged by consultants in orthodontics or restorative dentistry, and if MDT planning is required, they are booked onto the MHC. There are sufficient patients with complex cases of moderate and severe hypodontia to justify a regular MDT hypodontia clinic.

The role of the general dental practitioner in the management of the hypodontia patient.

The general dental practitioner (GDP) is usually the first person to suspect that a young patient is affected by hypodontia. The condition occurs rarely in the primary dentition but is relatively common in the permanent dentition. Between the ages of 7 and 12 years, failure of a permanent tooth to erupt as expected will lead the GDP to initiate and then contribute to the ideal management of the patient's condition. This ranges from reassurance and preventive measures to providing aspects of treatment in a long-term management plan, alongside a multidisciplinary specialist team and thereafter, delivery of life-long dental care.

Involving young people and parents in decision-making for hypodontia.

Involving young people and their parents in decisions about their health care is ethically and professionally the right thing to do. Good decision-making relies on informed, value-based deliberation. Providing the right treatment for people with hypodontia is complex, both technically, in terms of the range of options available, and from a communication perspective. Treatment decisions faced by young people with hypodontia can have lifelong implications and the weight of this is felt both by the patient, who may have limited experience of dental treatment and decision-making, and their parents, who act as advocates. It is important that clinicians understand how they can best share the available evidence and their expertise in a way that can be understood and applied. Clinicians also have an important role in facilitating young people to recognise and communicate their own values, expectations, and ultimately, preferences for treatment. This paper outlines the challenges of navigating information sharing and engaging in shared decision-making specific to hypodontia. A scoping review of the literature by the authors was conducted to identify evidence-based advice for discussing uncertainties, risks and increasing engagement in decision-making. This may be useful to both primary and secondary care practitioners involved in decision-making with people with hypodontia.

The impact of orthodontic treatment on a young person's quality of life, esthetics, and self-esteem in hypodontia: A longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: This research aimed to evaluate the impact of orthodontic treatment on a young person's oral health-related quality of life, self-esteem, and esthetics concerning hypodontia. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal hospital-based study recruited 97 participants with hypodontia, aged 11-18 years. Forty-one participants (42%) originally planned to have space closure and the remainder space opening, with subsequent prosthetic replacement. The following questionnaires were completed before and after orthodontic treatment: the child perception questionnaire, Bristol condition-specific questionnaire for hypodontia (BCSQ), the child health questionnaire, and the Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Scale (OASIS). The Wilcoxon and matched pairs t tests approach was applied to compare before and after orthodontic treatment for significant testing (P <0.05). RESULTS: Fifteen participants were lost to follow-up, resulting in 82 participants completing orthodontic treatment, with an average age of 13.8 ± 1.71 years. A total of 282 teeth were missing in the sample. Treatment resulted in significantly lower indexes (P <0.001) to overall BCSQ, OASIS, appearance, and how others would treat them. In comparing the 2 subgroups, those treated with space closure had significantly reduced functional limitations (child perception questionnaire), appearance concerns, self-esteem (child health questionnaire), OASIS, and overall BCSQ scores. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic treatment in participants with hypodontia appears to significantly impact a range of psychological and esthetic scales. In particular, space closure appears to significantly improve the quality of life of participants compared with those undergoing space opening.

Interdisciplinary orthodontics-implants management of a challenging hypodontia case complicated by a class II division 2, bimaxillary retroclination.

INTRODUCTION: The case in this study had moderate hypodontia, with both lower lateral incisors and the lower-left second premolar missing. A Class II division 2 relationship with severe crowding in the upper arch and a traumatic deep bite over a skeletal I base complicated the occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The plan was to extract the upper first premolars to relieve upper arch crowding and the lower-left impacted second premolar to preserve the bilateral class I molar relationship. A class I occlusal relationship was achieved through space opening in the lower lateral incisors region and space closure in the upper and lower premolars regions. RESULTS: The use of orthodontic screws for bite opening and anterior segment retraction, in conjunction with bi-metric slot size selection in bracket prescription, was effective in controlling incisor inclination and interincisal angle. The use of an implant fixture before beginning the finishing stage allowed for a reduction in total treatment time and facilitated the provision of the final prosthesis before debonding the case. As a result, the patient was able to receive a satisfactory occlusion on the day of debonding. CONCLUSION: This case of moderate hypodontia was successfully resolved by combining space closure and space opening effectively. To solve the arch problems in such Class II division 2 cases with severe crowding, extractions were required. To complete the case, this was combined with intrusive and retractive mechanics. In hypodontia cases, implants are an excellent choice for both aesthetics and functional restoration.

A comparative retrospective study on the prevalence and therapeutic treatment of dental agenesis between healthy children and children with systemic disease or congenital malformation.

BACKGROUND: Dental agenesis (DA) in the permanent dentition is one of the most common dental anomalies, with a prevalence up to 2-10%. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the prevalence and therapeutic treatment of DA in healthy children (HC) compared to children with systemic disease or congenital malformation (SD/CM). METHODS: Out of 3407 patients treated at the Department of Paediatric Dentistry of the Justus Liebig University Giessen (Germany) between January 2015 and December 2020, a total of 1067 patients (594 female, 473 male) aged between 4.5 and 18 years were included in this study due to DA. Besides the patients' general medical history and therapeutic treatments, panoramic radiographs were analysed. RESULTS: In contrast to the HC group with 9.7% DA, the SD/CM group showed a significantly higher prevalence of DA (19.8%; p < 0.05). The latter group was further classified into children with ectodermal dysplasia (4.4%), down syndrome (8.2%), cleft lip and palate (4.4%), intellectual disability/developmental delay (16.4%), and other genetic/organic diseases without intellectual disability (45.9%). Regarding therapeutic treatments, the HC group (59.5%) was significantly more often treated with an orthodontic gap opening compared to the SD/CM group (42.6%; p < 0.05), followed by orthodontic gap closing 36.5% in the HC group and 22.9% in the SD/CM group (p < 0.05), whereas no treatment was predominantly performed in the SD/CM group (37.7%) compared to the HC group (4%; p < 0.05). Furthermore, 50% in the SD/CM group required general anaesthesia for therapeutic treatment (vs. 8.1% in the HC group; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Children with SD/CM suffered more often from DA compared to HC that underlines multi- and interdisciplinary treatment of utmost importance. Furthermore, due to intellectual disability, common treatment methods can be complicated by insufficient compliance. This fact underlines the importance of an early attempt to establish the necessary cooperation enabling children with SD/CM to receive therapy.