Introduction

Dental implants have become the treatment of choice for partially edentulous patients.1,2  A single anterior tooth implant can offer highly predictable results when criteria such as minimum 2-mm bone thickness in the buccolingual dimension and adequate implant–tooth distance in the mesiodistal dimension are met.3,4  Treatment of traumatic injuries in the anterior maxilla can be challenging.5,6  Conditions such as increased overjet, short face profile, and Class II dentoskeletal malocclusions79  increase the risk of dental trauma. Furthermore, placing an implant in a protruded position, such as in a patient with increased overjet, increases the risk of further trauma to the implant, which can be catastrophic.

Staged management is often suggested for traumatic loss of maxillary anterior teeth, which includes initial orthodontic treatment to create adequate space for the implant before placement and possibly correcting dental trauma risk factors (increased overjet).10  However, if implants are placed initially, subsequent orthodontic treatment is restricted and may be compromised.11  Currently, there is no standard guideline to manage this problem. We present a patient with posttraumatic anterior tooth loss who received an implant and subsequent orthodontic treatment that included proximal enameloplasty, stripping for tooth contouring, and tooth extraction to correct the malocclusion.

Case Presentation

A 38-year-old male teacher with a Class III malocclusion on a Class II skeletal base visited the dental department of Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital for implant placement due to the traumatic loss of tooth 11 two weeks earlier. An extraoral examination revealed no significant facial asymmetry. The mandibular dental midline was located 2.5 mm to the right of the maxillary midline. Maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth crowding compromised his oral hygiene, and there was moderate periodontal destruction around teeth 31, 32, 41, and 42. He was healthy and a nonsmoker. Clinical examination revealed a single-tooth implant site for tooth 11, which was covered with healing mucosa (Figures 1 through 3). His anterior teeth were crowded, with a 5-mm overjet and a 6.5-mm overbite (Figure 4a, b).

Figures 1–3.

Figure 1. Tooth 11 loss caused by dental trauma Intraoral (frontal view) at the first visit to the hospital. Figure 2. Initial periapical radiograph. Figure 3. Initial panoramic radiograph.

Figures 1–3.

Figure 1. Tooth 11 loss caused by dental trauma Intraoral (frontal view) at the first visit to the hospital. Figure 2. Initial periapical radiograph. Figure 3. Initial panoramic radiograph.

Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Intraoral view of the upper and lower dentition. Figure 5. Temporary resin bonded bridge for tooth 11.

Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Intraoral view of the upper and lower dentition. Figure 5. Temporary resin bonded bridge for tooth 11.

Treatment Summary

The principal treatment plan included a single-tooth implant, a conventional fixed partial denture, and concomitant orthodontic treatment. Orthodontic treatment before implant placement was suggested, which the patient initially rejected. We used a temporary resin-bonded bridge to restore tooth 11 and improve its appearance (Figure 5).12,13  The crestal bone width was considered adequate for implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration. Early implant placement with bone augmentation procedures were performed 4 weeks after traumatic loss of tooth 11. A slightly palatal crestal incision was made, and a mucoperiosteal flap with 2 relieving incisions was elevated. A standard tissue level implant (Straumann Regular Neck, SLA, 4.1-mm diameter, 12-mm length, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) was placed in the correct three-dimensional position14  (Figure 6) in combination with a simultaneous contour augmentation on the facial aspect with autogenous bone chips and a low-substitution bone filler (Bio-Oss; Geistlich Pharma, Wolhusen, Switzerland). A resorbable collagen membrane (Biomend, Zimmer Dental, Carlsbad, Calif; Figure 7) was applied for the guided bone regeneration procedure. A tension-free primary wound closure was achieved with periosteal releasing incisions.

Figures 6–10.

Figure 6. Periapical radiograph taken after placing the implant. Figure 7. (a) Horizontal bony destruction over buccal bone. (b) Autogenous bone chips and a low-substitution bone filler with a resorbable collagen membrane were applied to augment the implant site. Figure 8. Screw-retained provisional crown for soft tissue conditioning. Figure 9. Extraction of tooth 42. Level and alignment stage of the orthodontic treatment. Figure 10. Tooth stripping and enameloplasty was performed.

Figures 6–10.

Figure 6. Periapical radiograph taken after placing the implant. Figure 7. (a) Horizontal bony destruction over buccal bone. (b) Autogenous bone chips and a low-substitution bone filler with a resorbable collagen membrane were applied to augment the implant site. Figure 8. Screw-retained provisional crown for soft tissue conditioning. Figure 9. Extraction of tooth 42. Level and alignment stage of the orthodontic treatment. Figure 10. Tooth stripping and enameloplasty was performed.

After a 3-month healing period, a screw-retained provisional crown was prepared before fabricating the permanent restoration for peri-implant soft tissue conditioning (Figure 8). During soft tissue conditioning, the patient changed his mind and decided to undergo orthodontic treatment. Thus, orthodontic treatment was scheduled and performed. The Bolton anterior ratio15  was 0.78; the width length ratio of tooth 21 was 0.9. According to the above parameters, extraction of tooth 42, tooth stripping, and enameloplasty were performed for teeth with a higher width/length ratio (Figures 9, 10), and the anterior arch area was also expanded to help correct the crowded dental arch. After 8 months of treatment, the malocclusion with crowding, deep overbite, and increased overjet was corrected; there was a normalized width/length ratio for the maxillary central incisor (0.78; normal range, 0.75–0.8; Figure 11). A removable retainer was applied to stabilize the dental arch and another provisional crown was placed over the implant to optimize tooth morphology and overall esthetic appearance. At the end of treatment, a permanent prosthesis for the implant was delivered; the pink esthetic score plus white esthetic score (PES/WES) was 16 (Figure 12). Satisfactory esthetic and functional results were observed at the 2-year follow-up (Figures 13, 14).

Figures 11–15.

Figure 11. Width/length ratio of upper central incisor = 0.78. Figure 12. Esthetic score (PES/WES) of tooth 11 final restoration was 16. Figure 13. Two-year follow-up after delivery revealed a stable esthetic treatment outcome. Figure 14. Periapical radiograph taken at 2 years' follow-up. Figure 15. The black line represents the tooth contour before orthodontic therapy, and the green line represents the tooth contour after orthodontic therapy.

Figures 11–15.

Figure 11. Width/length ratio of upper central incisor = 0.78. Figure 12. Esthetic score (PES/WES) of tooth 11 final restoration was 16. Figure 13. Two-year follow-up after delivery revealed a stable esthetic treatment outcome. Figure 14. Periapical radiograph taken at 2 years' follow-up. Figure 15. The black line represents the tooth contour before orthodontic therapy, and the green line represents the tooth contour after orthodontic therapy.

Discussion

The treatment plan in this case was based on the patient's preference and the ridge resorption process after tooth extraction. After implant insertion, the patient decided to undergo orthodontic treatment. If the patient accepted orthodontic treatment initially, the treatment sequence would have followed the traditional protocol, that is, orthodontic treatment for moving the adjacent teeth in an upright and parallel direction, creating adequate space in the mesiodistal dimension, ridge augmentation, implant placement at the edentulous site of tooth 11, and finally, delivering a permanent restoration. The result of implant-incorporated treatment can be unpredictable and compromised if implant placement is performed before necessary orthodontic treatment.11 

The dimensions of the alveolar ridge decrease with tooth extraction.16,17  Cardaropoli et al reported that residual ridge dimensions in the posterior area of the maxilla or mandible change significantly 4 months after extraction, with a 4.48 ± 0.65-mm reduction in ridge width and a 1.54 ± 0.33-mm reduction in ridge height.18  Similarly, Barone et al reported a 4.3 ± 0.8-mm horizontal resorption and a 3.6 ± 1.5-mm reduction in buccal ridge height 7 months after tooth extraction.19  Lekovic measured ridge reduction 6 months after tooth extraction using pin re-entry and reported a 1.2–1.5-mm reduction in the vertical ridge height and a 4.4–4.56-mm change in horizontal dimensions.20,21  The post-extraction vertical and horizontal resorption of bone may compromise the ridge dimensions and lead to a single-wall peri-implant defect, which is a particularly wide defect of facial bone (bundle bone) in anterior teeth. Furthermore, the delayed grafting procedure for posttraumatic soft and hard tissue damage in patients with a missing tooth22  probably exaggerates ridge resorption, atrophy of the alveolar process, and formation of scar tissue in that area. Guided regeneration of bone should be considered to increase ridge dimensions before implant insertion to optimize implant position.23 

Therefore, in this patient, significant resorption could be inevitable as the time-consuming orthodontic treatment performed prior to implant placement and the more complicated staged bone augmentation therapy were necessary for ideal implant position at the cost of more time, money, and morbidity.

Despite violation of the traditional protocol involving orthodontic treatment before implantation, the contributors to satisfactory esthetic results in this case included the ideal position of the implant in the mesiodistal dimension, minimal displacement of peri-implant teeth in the mesiodistal and orofacial dimensions during orthodontic treatment (Figure 15), and appropriate width/length ratio achieved by tooth contouring, all of which are essential for maxillary central incisor esthetics.

The original width/length ratio of the left maxillary central incisor measured 0.9, which exceeded the normal range published by Duarte (0.85 for the width/length ratio of maxillary central incisors).24  Tsukiyama et al compared the width/length ratio of maxillary central incisors between Asians and Caucasians. He reported that Asians have a lower ratio than Caucasians (0.72 vs 0.78, respectively).25  However, Ku et al reported a width/length ratio of 0.77 in a Korean population.26  After tooth shaping and contouring, the width/length ratio of maxillary central incisors was 0.78 in this case, which was ideal for the Asian group. Tooth shaping was performed for a 1.2-mm reduction at the widest mesiodistal area.

At the end of treatment, the esthetic result was evaluated by PES/WES (the highest score is 20).27,28  PES/WES in our patient was 16, which was higher than the mean value of 14.7 ± 1.18 reported by Belser et al for a maxillary anterior single-tooth implant.27 

Considering the higher rate of dental injury in patients with malocclusion (ie, increased overjet), further research is necessary to determine the optimal sequence of implant placement and orthodontic treatment in this group.

Conclusion

Placing implants before orthodontic treatment can provide satisfactory functional and esthetic results in patients with traumatic loss and malpositioned anterior teeth, even without following the traditional protocol of completing orthodontic treatment before implant placement. The essential factors for treatment success are as follows:

  • Implant placement in an appropriate three-dimensional position

  • Minimal displacement of peri-implant teeth in the mesiodistal and buccolingual/palatal dimensions during orthodontic treatment

  • Performing tooth shaping and contouring, if necessary, to achieve an appropriate width/length ratio

Abbreviation

     
  • PES/WES

    pink esthetic score plus white esthetic score

References

References
1
Santing
HJ
,
Raghoebar
GM
,
Vissink
A
,
den Hartog
L
,
Meijer
HJ.
Performance of the Straumann Bone Level Implant system for anterior single-tooth replacements in augmented and nonaugmented sites: a prospective cohort study with 60 consecutive patients
.
Clin Oral Impl Res
.
2013
;
24
:
941
948
.
2
Belser
UC
,
Grütter
L
,
Vailati
F
,
Bornstein
MM
,
Weber
HP
,
Buser
D.
Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores
.
J Periodontol
.
2009
;
80
:
140
151
.
3
Le
BT
,
Borzabadi-Farahani
A.
Labial bone thickness in area of anterior maxillary implants associated with crestal labial soft tissue thickness
.
Implant Dent
.
2012
;
21
:
406
410
.
4
Borzabadi-Farahani
A.
Orthodontic considerations in restorative management of hypodontia patients with endosseous implants
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2011
;
38
:
779
791
.
5
Schwartz-Arad
D
,
Levin
L.
Post-traumatic use of dental implants to rehabilitate anterior maxillary teeth
.
Dent Traumatol
.
2004
;
20
:
344
347
.
6
Nissan
J
,
Gross
O
,
Mardinger
O
,
Ghelfan
O
,
Sacco
R
,
Chaushu
G.
Post-traumatic implant-supported restoration of the anterior maxillary teeth using cancellous bone block allografts
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2011
;
69
:
e513
e518
.
7
Borzabadi-Farahani
A
,
Borzabadi-Farahani
A
,
Eslamipour
F.
An investigation into the association between facial profile and maxillary incisor trauma, a clinical non-radiographic study
.
Dent Traumatol
.
2010
;
26
:
403
408
.
8
Borzabadi-Farahani
A
,
Borzabadi-Farahani
A.
The association between orthodontic treatment need and maxillary incisor trauma, a retrospective clinical study
.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
.
2011
;
112
:
e75
80
.
9
Shulman
JD
,
Peterson
J.
The association between incisor trauma and occlusal characteristics in individuals 8–50 years of age
.
Dent Traumatol
.
2004
;
20
:
67
74
.
10
Thilander
B.
Orthodontic space closure versus implant placement in subjects with missing teeth
.
J Oral Rehab
.
2008
;
35
:
64
71
.
11
Rose
TP
,
Jivraj
S
,
Chee
W.
The role of orthodontics in implant dentistry
.
Br Dental J
.
2006
;
201
:
753
764
.
12
Kokich
VG
,
Swift
EJ.
Temporary restoration of maxillary lateral incisor implant sites
.
J Esthet Restor Dent
.
2011
;
23
:
136
137
.
13
Peretz
B
,
Nuni
E.
Resin-bonded cantilever and twist-flex wire for maxillary incisor lost due to trauma
.
J Can Dent Assoc
.
2012
;
77
:
C28
.
14
Buser
D
,
Martin
W
,
Belser
UC.
Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2004
;
19
:
43
61
.
15
Bolton
WA.
Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion
.
The Angle Orthodontist
.
1958
;
28
:
113
130
.
16
Carlsson
GE
,
Persson
G.
Morphologic changes of the mandible after extraction and wearing of dentures. A longitudinal, clinical, and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years
.
Odontologisk Revy
.
1967
;
18
:
27
54
.
17
Johnson
K.
A study of the dimensional changes occurring in the maxilla following tooth extraction
.
Aust Dent J
.
1969
;
14
:
241
244
.
18
Cardaropoli
D
,
Tamagnone
L
,
Roffredo
A
,
Gaveglio
L
,
Cardaropoli
G.
Socket preservation using bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial with histologic analysis
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2012
;
32
:
421
430
.
19
Barone
A
,
Aldini
NN
,
Fini
M
,
Giardino
R
,
Calvo Guirado JL, Covani U. Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study
.
J Periodontol
.
2008
;
79
:
1370
1377
.
20
Lekovic
V
,
Kenney
EB
,
Weinlaender
M
,
et al
.
A bone regenerative approach to alveolar ridge maintenance following tooth extraction. Report of 10 cases
.
J Periodontol
.
1997
;
68
:
563
570
.
21
Lekovic
V
,
Camargo
PM
,
Klokkevold
PR
,
et al
.
Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable membranes
.
J Periodontol
.
1998
;
69
:
1044
1049
.
22
Cohenca
N
,
Simon
JH.
Clinical indications for digital imaging in dento-alveolar trauma. Part 1: traumatic injuries
.
Dent Traumatol
.
2007
;
23
:
95
104
.
23
Chen
S
,
Buser
D.
Pre-operative assessment and treatment options for post-extraction implants
.
In
:
Belser
UC
,
Buser
D
,
eds
.
ITI treatment guide, volume 3: Implants placement in post-extraction sites – Treatment options
.
Berlin
:
Quintessence Publishing
;
2008
:
25
.
24
Duarte
S
Jr,
Schnider
P
,
Lorezon
AP.
The importance of width/length ratios of maxillary anterior permanent teeth in esthetic rehabilitation
.
Eur J Esthet Dent
.
2008
;
3
:
224
234
.
25
Tsukiyama
T
,
Marcushamer
E
,
Griffin
TJ.
Comparison of the anatomic crown width/length ratios of unworn and worn maxillary teeth in Asian and white subjects
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2012
;
107
:
11
16
.
26
Ku
J
,
Yang
H.
A morphometric analysis of maxillary central incisor on the basis of facial appearance in Korea
.
J Adv Prosthodont
.
2012
;
4
:
13
17
.
27
Belser
UC
,
Grütter
L
,
Vailati
F
,
Bornstein
MM
,
Weber
H
,
Buser
D.
Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores
.
J Periodontol
.
2009
;
80
:
140
151
.
28
Fürhauser
R
,
Florescu
D
,
Benesch
T
,
Haas
R
,
Mailath
G
,
Watzek
G.
Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2005
;
16
:
639
644
.