Case Report

By Dr. Amit Gupta , Dr. Rakesh Thukral , Dr. Dheeraj Gupta , Dr. Anurag Bhargava , Dr. Virag Bhatia
Corresponding Author Dr. Amit Gupta
MDCRC Indore, - India
Submitting Author Dr. Amit Gupta
Other Authors Dr. Rakesh Thukral
Cods Rau Orthodontics, - India

Dr. Dheeraj Gupta
RDCH Prosthodontics, - India

Dr. Anurag Bhargava
MDCRC Oral Surgery, - India

Dr. Virag Bhatia
MDCRC Orthodontics, - India


Multidisciplinary Approach, Missing Anterior Teeth,orthodontics

Gupta A, Thukral R, Gupta D, Bhargava A, Bhatia V. Multidisciplinary Treatment Approach for Missing Central Incisor. WebmedCentral DENTISTRY 2012;3(2):WMC003019
doi: 10.9754/journal.wmc.2012.003019

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submitted on: 15 Feb 2012 01:09:59 PM GMT
Published on: 16 Feb 2012 10:09:23 AM GMT


Improved technology and interdisciplinary team work allows dental providers to achieve treatment goals of function, esthetics, stability and health. This paper reports the management of a missing single anterior tooth by conventional implant prosthesis along with adjunctive orthodontic treatment.


Implant-bone restoration has become a treatment modality accepted by scientific community for fully and partially edentulous patients.[1] The breakthrough in oral rehabilitation was initiated by the discovery of titanium based dental implants capable of achieving anchorage in jaw bone with direct bone to implant contact. This functional ankylosis is often referred to as osseointegration. It was first described by Branemark, Schroeder, and well documented by Davies.[2, 3] The original Branemark protocol requires implant to be inserted 4-7 months prior to loading. This long treatment period may be of great inconvenience, and is sometimes the reason for not choosing implant supported restorations [1]. This time-related limitation of implant restoration can be made advantageous should the partially edentulous patient require prior orthodontic correction for satisfactory prosthetic rehabilitation. Partially edentulous patient with inadequate pontic space along with poor alignment of opposing teeth severely affects the esthetic and functional outcome of planned implant prosthesis. Orthodontic correction becomes prerequisite for the satisfactory prosthetic rehabilitation of patient.
This paper reports the management of a missing upper left central incisor of a young male patient which was replaced by conventional implant prosthesis with adjunctive orthodontic treatment.

Case Report(s)

A 28-year-old male reported to the Dept. of Prosthodontics, with missing upper left central incisor. Dental history revealed fracture and subsequent extraction of the said tooth 6 months back. Patient was partially edentulous since then. His medical history was normal. Intraoral examination showed that his oral cavity was in good condition apart from mesial drifting of upper right central incisor and left lateral incisor also lower anterior teeth were poorly aligned interfering with normal over jet relation with planned prosthetic replacement. Other hard and soft tissues were sound. (Figure 1a, 1b) As agreed by the patient, the treatment selected was conventional implant prosthesis with simultaneous orthodontic correction during healing phase for creating optimum esthetics and incisal guidance.
Implant surgery: Under aseptic precautions, left infraorbital and nasopalatine nerve blocks were administered. Two release incisions with crevicular incisions were placed and the surgical site was exposed. Initially drilling was done with round drill and subsequent graded drilling was done with 2mm, 2.8 mm, and 3.2 mm drills.
A self-tapping Hi-tech implant of size 3.75 x 13 mm was placed at the prepared site using a surgical stent as a guide (Figure 2a). Implant was screwed into the bone and tightened with a wrench. Sutures were placed to close the surgical site. The patient was recalled after 48 hours for post-operative checkup. No complaints were reported by the patient and healing was uneventful. After 7 days, checkup was done and sutures were removed. After one month, implant site was opened and healing screw was removed and replaced by healing cap, which was kept for 15 days.
Provisional prosthesis: Non-loaded provisional prosthesis was planned which act as a guide for orthodontic correction during healing period. Impression along with impression post was made with elastomeric impression material. Lab analog was transferred to the master cast; straight abutment was adjusted and tried in patient’s mouth. Provisional restoration of heat cure acrylic resin was cemented with temporary cement over adjusted implant abutment in patient’s mouth (Figure 2b).
Healing Phase / Orthodontic Correction: Sectional orthodontic treatment was planned for both upper and lower anterior teeth. Space regaining for the lost upper left central incisor and alignment of lower anterior teeth was achieved. Ribbon arch brackets were bonded on upper right central and left lateral incisor along with rigid 0.016 Australian stainless steel wire section. An open coil spring was used to regain space lost for missing tooth. In the lower arch proximal stripping was done to gain space for alignment of anterior teeth. Ribbon arch brackets were bonded with a flexible 0.016 NiTi wire section (Figure 3a). Orthodontic treatment lasted for a period of three months after which final prosthesis was planned.
Final Prosthesis: Space regaining and alignment of lower anteriors by orthodontic treatment created desired space for final prosthesis with scope for creating sufficient over jet (Figure 3b). Final prosthesis of appropriate shade in the form of Porcelain Fused to Metal crown was fabricated, tried and cemented (Figure 4a, 4b). At the one-year recall the implant and the crown were in good condition. The patient was very pleased with the result.

Discussions and Conclusion

A common axiom in traditional prosthodontics for partial edentulism is to provide a fixed partial denture wherever possible.[4] As a result of continued research in treatment planning, implant design, materials and technique, implant prosthesis often offer a more predictable treatment course than traditional restorations. One of the commonest procedures performed in conventional implant dentistry is single tooth replacement. The maxillary anterior single tooth implant often can come closer to ideal goals of implant dentistry than any other modality. [5, 6]
Duration of conventional implant prosthodontic treatment may be of great inconvenience and limitation because as per surgical and prosthetic protocol suggested by Branemark and progressive bone loading concept by Carl Misch, time required for rigidly fixated implant to heal and to be restored is approximately 4-7 months depending upon bone density at initial surgery.[7]
Adult patients with long standing missing teeth frequently undergo anterior/posterior drifting of adjacent teeth, vertical supraeruption of opposing teeth, and alveolar atrophy where the tooth loss occurs. These conditions are elements of progressive “bite collapse” described by Amsterdam and Amsterdam and Abrams[8]. With increasing reliability of dental implants, adult patients with tooth loss and arch/ bite collapse are best treated with the reversal of bite collapse through orthodontic therapy that is, to upright tilted teeth, level occlusal plane, intrude supraerupted teeth or segments, and recreate needed space for tooth replacement. Crown and root angulation are essential to create a dental environment that is well prepared for the restorative treatment that is functional, periodontically healthful and esthetic.The partially edentulous case discussed in this article required orthodontic correction of tilted teeth adjacent to implant site and realignment of lower anterior teeth for creation of ideal pontic space and sufficient overjet respectively. This orthodontic correction could have been a prerequisite for most of the available prosthodontic treatment plans. In the said edentulous case, orthodontic correction was achieved by sectional orthodontic treatment utilizing the time made available during the healing phase of implant, thereby justifying the longer duration conventional implant prosthesis as the treatment of choice.


1. Branemark P. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand. J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;16:1-132.
2. Creugers N, Kreulen C, Snoek P, De Kanter R. A systematic review of single-tooth restorations supported by implants. Journal of Dentistry. 2000;28(4):209-17.
3. Buser D, Mericske?stern R, Pierre Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, et al. Long term evaluation of non submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8 year life table analysis of a prospective multi center study with 2359 implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1997;8 (3):161-72.
4. Davies J. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. The International journal of prosthodontics. 1998;11(5):391-401.
5. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.
6. Mishra P, Chandrasekaran S, Mohamed JB. Implants in periodontally compromised sites. International Journal of Dental Clinics. 2011;3(1):100-1.
7. Kumar P, Puranik SN. Anterior Spring Cantilever Fixed Partial Denture: A Simple Solution to a Complex Prosthodontic Dilemma. International Journal of Dental Clinics. 2010;2(3):41-3.
8. Amsterdam M, Abrams L: periodontal prosthesis in periodontal therapy. In Goldman HM, Cohen DW, editors: periodontal therapy, ed 6, st Louis, 1980, Mosby.

Source(s) of Funding

No funding required

Competing Interests



This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.

0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.


Author Comments
0 comments posted so far


What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)