Semipermanent replacement of missing maxillary lateral incisors by mini-implant retained pontics: A follow-up study

Abstract

Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors can be treated either by closing the space and substituting the canines for the missing lateral incisors or, in adults, by replacing the missing teeth with fixed prosthetics or implants. This article illustrates a method that can be used for a semipermanent implant replacement of the missing incisors in adult patients. An Aarhus mini-implant was inserted perpendicular to the palatal mucosa of the alveolar process of the edentulous area. A pontic was made at chair side of composite material around a stainless steel wire extending from the mini-implant. This replacement approach allowed for the vertical development of the alveolar process and maintained the bone density and morphology of the alveolar process. Five years after placement, periapical radiographs showed that the alveolar process was following the vertical development related to the eruption of the adjacent teeth, and that the morphology and the bone density were maintained, making the later insertion of a dental implant possible without additional surgical buildup.

Unilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor: space closure versus space preservation in growing patients

“…8) This type of pontic can also serve as a temporary solution to allow vertical growth of the alveolar process over a period of 5 years. 20 However, a developing convergence of the adjacent roots over time might still pose a problem for future implant placement. 21…”

The Maryland bridge retainer: A modification of a Maryland bridge

“…More recently, orthodontists have reported the semipermanent replacement of missing incisors with miniscrew-retained pontics in growing patients. [27][28][29][30] Because of their thin diameter, miniscrews do not osseointegrate, and they can be removed easily when the patient reaches skeletal maturity. Graham, 27 Paquette, 28 Ciarlantini and Melsen, 29 and Cope and McFadden 30 reported the successful retention of these restorations after 14, 32, 60, and 99 months, respectively.…”

Development of a calcified odontogenic hamartoma following avulsion of a permanent central incisor

“…During the follow‐up visits, and considering the child's age, leaving the lesion in place was not an option since it hindered the orthodontic treatment plan. The proposed treatment of upper central incisor substitution by the upper lateral incisor considered the age of the patient because insertion of an implant would result in considerably delaying treatment and the absence of a tooth for long periods would have probably resulted in vertical alveolar atrophy . In addition, the autotransplant technique was not considered because the anatomy of tooth 12 in terms of size (wide mesiodistal diameter) and shape was favourable to mimic the missing tooth 11 .…”