A visual examination revealed normal dentition with no apparent decay, healthy periodontium, and congenitally missing Nos. 6 and 11 with a retained primary crown tooth C held in by gingiva and less than a third of the primary root. The patient was post-orthodontic and exhibited Class I occlusion with a 2 mm overbite and 2 mm overjet. Noted were some minor centric occlusal prematurities, canine rise both right and left with no balancing prematurities, and no evidence of parafunction.
Treatment discussion with patient
The primary treatment discussion with the patient included the following:
- Removing the retained crown C
- Bone grafting to build up the facial lingual profile of the ridges of Nos. 6 and 11
- After graft healing, placing dental implants with immediate temporary crowns to guide the tissues
- Final custom ceramic abutment and crowns
Alternate treatment plans were discussed, including: routine crown and bridge; two three-unit bridges in which Nos. 5 and 7 and Nos. 10 and 12 would serve as abutments and Nos. 6 and 11 as pontics; and two winged Maryland bridges.
Each procedure was discussed in regards to expected outcomes, longevity, functionality, and potential complications. The patient was dismissed and appointed for a final treatment discussion to take place after digital models, a CT scan, and a diagnostic wax-up could be examined.
Diagnostics
CT results showed that the proximity between the adjacent bicuspid and lateral incisor root apices in both positions, Nos. 6 (4.17 mm) and 11 (3.14 mm), only allowed for short, small-diameter, pin-screw-style implants. The ridge width in implant positions No. 6 (4.43 mm) and No. 11 (5.22 mm) were limited but could be expanded or grafted for a better result if a wider implant could be placed. But again, the root proximity and ridge height ruled out this increased diameter.
Further studies were completed by sending the CT’s DICOM file with an accompanying STL file of the maxillary arch to 360imaging. This was done to have the data sets overlaid and to have a consultation with 360imaging’s attending oral surgeon to confirm implant placement.
Consultation with the oral surgeon concluded that only extremely small pin-screw-type implants could be placed without further orthodontic root-torque movement. This orthodontic movement of the roots had previously been attempted and was not successful, and therefore the patient declined more orthodontics.
Further discussion concluded that the longevity would be limited for a small-diameter, short pin-screw implant that needed to function in disculsion. Moreover, the poor tissue-emergence profile could not render an esthetic and long-term functional canine tooth.
Ultimately, the patient decided on the two three-unit ceramic bridge solution.
Treatment
Temporization
A diagnostic wax-up was completed and two composite pontics were fabricated (figures 2a and 2b). The temporaries were removed and a CS 3600 intraoral scanner (Carestream Dental) was used to capture a maxillary full-arch edentulous scan, a full-arch mandibular scan, and a virtual check bite (figures 3a and 3b). The pontics were temporarily bonded in the edentulous zones to assess esthetics and function. Then, a full-arch maxillary, full-arch mandibular, and virtual check-bite scan were completed with the CS 3600 (figures 4a and 4b). All files were saved for later submission to the laboratory for digital milling.
Figures 2a and 2b: Completed wax-up and fabricated composite pontics