Limits...
Missing upper incisors: a retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus implant.

Jamilian A, Perillo L, Rosa M - Prog Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: No statistically significant differences were found in relation to the VAS scores of the subjects (P < 0.857).No significant differences were found in tooth mobility, plaque index (P < 0.632), and the prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders.None of the treatments impaired temporomandibular joint function.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the esthetic, periodontal, and functional outcomes of orthodontic space closure versus implant substitution in patients with missing maxillary incisors 5 years after completion of treatment.

Methods: The study group consisted of ten patients treated with orthodontic space closure (six males, four females, mean age 19 ± 2.1 years at the completion of treatment) and ten patients treated with implant insertion (five males, five females, mean age 20 ± 1.4 years at the time of implant insertion). Tooth mobility, plaque index, probing depth, infraocclusion, open gingival embrasure (black triangle), and temporomandibular joint function were recorded at the 5.6 years follow-up. Self-perceived dental esthetic appearance was also evaluated through a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. T-test was used to evaluate the data.

Results: All patients were equally satisfied with the appearance of their teeth 5.6 ± 0.4 years after the completion of treatment. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to the VAS scores of the subjects (P < 0.857). No significant differences were found in tooth mobility, plaque index (P < 0.632), and the prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. However, significant infraocclusion was noticed in all implant patients (P < 0.001). Probing depth was also significantly higher in implant patients (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Orthodontic space closure and implant of missing maxillary incisors produced similar, well-accepted esthetic results. None of the treatments impaired temporomandibular joint function. Nevertheless, infraocclusion was evident in implant patients. Space closure patients also showed better periodontal health in comparison with implant patients.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Panoramic radiograph of the same patient 5 years after implant insertion.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4385022&req=5

Fig5: Panoramic radiograph of the same patient 5 years after implant insertion.

Mentions: Figures 2 and 3 show a patient with a missing upper lateral incisor, and Figures 4 and 5 show the same patient 5 years after implant insertion. Figures 6 and 7 show a patient with missing maxillary lateral incisors treated by orthodontic space closure, and Figures 8 and 9 show the same patient 5 years after the completion of treatment.Figure 2


Missing upper incisors: a retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus implant.

Jamilian A, Perillo L, Rosa M - Prog Orthod (2015)

Panoramic radiograph of the same patient 5 years after implant insertion.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4385022&req=5

Fig5: Panoramic radiograph of the same patient 5 years after implant insertion.
Mentions: Figures 2 and 3 show a patient with a missing upper lateral incisor, and Figures 4 and 5 show the same patient 5 years after implant insertion. Figures 6 and 7 show a patient with missing maxillary lateral incisors treated by orthodontic space closure, and Figures 8 and 9 show the same patient 5 years after the completion of treatment.Figure 2

Bottom Line: No statistically significant differences were found in relation to the VAS scores of the subjects (P < 0.857).No significant differences were found in tooth mobility, plaque index (P < 0.632), and the prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders.None of the treatments impaired temporomandibular joint function.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the esthetic, periodontal, and functional outcomes of orthodontic space closure versus implant substitution in patients with missing maxillary incisors 5 years after completion of treatment.

Methods: The study group consisted of ten patients treated with orthodontic space closure (six males, four females, mean age 19 ± 2.1 years at the completion of treatment) and ten patients treated with implant insertion (five males, five females, mean age 20 ± 1.4 years at the time of implant insertion). Tooth mobility, plaque index, probing depth, infraocclusion, open gingival embrasure (black triangle), and temporomandibular joint function were recorded at the 5.6 years follow-up. Self-perceived dental esthetic appearance was also evaluated through a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. T-test was used to evaluate the data.

Results: All patients were equally satisfied with the appearance of their teeth 5.6 ± 0.4 years after the completion of treatment. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to the VAS scores of the subjects (P < 0.857). No significant differences were found in tooth mobility, plaque index (P < 0.632), and the prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. However, significant infraocclusion was noticed in all implant patients (P < 0.001). Probing depth was also significantly higher in implant patients (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Orthodontic space closure and implant of missing maxillary incisors produced similar, well-accepted esthetic results. None of the treatments impaired temporomandibular joint function. Nevertheless, infraocclusion was evident in implant patients. Space closure patients also showed better periodontal health in comparison with implant patients.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus