The migration of neighboring and antagonist teeth three months after implant placement in healed single tooth‐missing sites

Abstract

Objectives To quantify the neighboring and antagonist teeth migration of a single posterior tooth‐missing site within 3 months using digital scanning and measuring techniques. Materials and Methods Intraoral scans (IOS) were made in 40 patients presenting a single posterior tooth‐missing gap and receiving implant therapy. IOS were obtained at the day of and three months after implant surgery rendering a digital baseline model (BM) and a digital follow‐up model (FM). Digital models were superimposed using the implant scan body as reference. Antagonist models were processed by the best fit alignment. Dimensional change between anatomical landmarks on neighboring teeth and that of featuring points on antagonistic teeth were measured using a three‐dimensional analysis software. The Mann–Whitney U test was applied to compare the tooth‐moving distance between the mesial and distal neighboring teeth. The Kruskal–Wallis one‐way ANOVA was used to test the difference in dimensional change in tooth‐missing site among age subgroups. Results The mean dimensional change in the tooth‐missing site was −37.62 ± 106.36 μm (median: −28.33 μm, Q25 −72.65/Q75 38.97) mesial‐distally and −67.91 ± 42.37 μm (median: −61.50 μm, Q25 −88.25/Q75 −36.75) occlusal‐gingivally. Eighteen out of 40 mesial neighboring teeth and 24 out of 40 distal neighboring teeth showed migration towards the implants. When patients were grouped according to age, the mesial‐distal reduction in the tooth‐missing site was significantly larger in patients younger than 30 years compared with those older than 50 years (p < .05). Conclusions The dimensions of posterior tooth‐missing sites decreased over an observation period of 3 months.

Adjacent tooth migration after maxillary first molar loss in patients with sinus augmentation: A retrospective research

“…Moreover, the migration rate of the distal teeth was significantly higher in the younger than 30 years old group than in the other two groups. It is similar to the result in Guo and colleagues’ study, 4 in which they detected a significantly greater mesial–distal gap reduction in the younger group. Studies showed that the younger population has higher alveolar bone turnover, 34–36 and stronger masticatory forces in the younger group may synergistically hasten tooth movement.…”

“…The number of teeth lost was controlled within three in each arch to ensure the accuracy of the superimposition process. Dentition superimposition was also utilized for tooth migration measurement in Guo's study, 4 and they obtained dentition models using oral scanning, which was reported to hold a higher accuracy than CBCT, 37 but it is limited to the crown, with no information on the root, the alveolar bone, and so on; besides, an additional device and expense were required.…”

“…A recent prospective study examined the alterations in tooth‐missing gap using stone models and confocal laser scanning microscopy; they reported that the mean mesial–distal gap reductions were 0.35 and 0.67 mm, respectively, at 1 and 3 months after extraction, 3 but further follow‐up was not provided. Another retrospective study stated that the mean mesial–distal and occlusal–gingival gap reductions in the 3 months’ implant‐bone healing period were 37.62 and 67.91 μm, and novel digital technology of oral scanning was utilized for measurement in this research, 4 while case volume ( n = 40) and factor analysis were not sufficient. In studies using 2‐dimensional radiological measurements with more than 5 years of follow‐up, the mean reductions in both mesial–distal and occlusal–gingival gaps were less than 1 mm 5,6 .…”

“…Some factors could affect the progress of the dimensional change of the edentulous gap. For the mesial–distal gap reduction, it is elaborated that tooth movement was much more pronounced in the younger age group, 4,8 molar group 3 and periodontal disease group 3 while some studies stated that no differences were found between age groups 3,5 or tooth position groups 4,5 . García‐Herraiz and colleagues’ 3 and Gragg and colleagues’ 5 studies consistently clarified that the mesial–distal gap reduction rate was closely related to the elapsed time since tooth loss.…”

“…However, the mean occlusal‐gingival gap reduction reached 1.7 mm according to Craddock's study, which was measured according to the distance between cusp and occlusal curve on one cast model but not the positional change of tooth 7 . Different data among studies may result from various measurement techniques, including radiographic evaluation, 1,5 stone model measurement 3,7 and digital optical scanning 4 . Besides, different baseline times, whether on the extraction day or not, 3,4 also impact a lot.…”