- Email: [email protected]
Authors’ response
237
Readers' forum
5. Jamilian A, Perillo L, Rosa M. Missing upper incisors: a retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus implant. Prog Orthod 2015;16:5-10. 6. Jemt T, Ahlberg G, Henriksson K, Bondevik O. Tooth movements adjacent to single- implant restorations after more than 15 years of follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:626-32. 7. Andersson B, Bergenblock S, F€ urst B, Jemt T. Long-term function of single-implant restorations: a 17- to 19-year follow-up study on implant infraposition related to the shape of the face and patients’ satisfaction. Clinl Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:471-80. 8. Bergenblock S, Andersson B, F€ urst B, Jemt T. Long-Term followup of CeraOne single-implant restorations: an 18-year follow-up study based on a prospective patient cohort. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:471-9. 9. Dierens M, De Bruyn H, Kisch J, Nilner K, Cosyn J, Vandeweghe S. Prosthetic survival and complication rate of single implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16 to 22 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:117-28. 10. Rosa M, Zachrisson BU. The space-closure alternative for missing maxillary lateral incisors: an update. J Clin Orthod 2010;44: 540-9.
Authors’ response
W
e thank Katja Kritzler for the commentary on our article. We expressed our concern regarding undeniable potentially looming long-term problems with implant-borne crowns in the esthetic zone in both the introduction and the discussion sections of our article. We have acknowledged that the main advantages of orthodontic space closure are that the hard and soft tissue architectures “remain in a natural state that can better respond to the change over time” and that “it is not possible to exclude a potentially developing infraocclusion, especially in patients with poor interincisor stability.”1 However, long-term stability of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla was not the subject of our study. The aim was to repeat the study of Armbruster et al2 from 2005, in which “all 12 cases were photographed after the completion of orthodontic treatment and any restorative dental work,” and not after years in retention, to evaluate whether the introduction of new techniques in implantology and periodontics over the last 10 years has improved the esthetic appeal of implant-borne crowns for congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors, as suggested by various research groups.3-5 Our study clearly shows that the esthetic outcomes in the short term are rated significantly better than 10 years ago—nothing more and nothing less. It was not our intention to interpolate long-term esthetics or functional stability of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla from the study, for which sound scientific evidence is currently not available. We refer to the latest Foundation for Oral Rehabilitation Consensus Conference on the rehabilitation of
missing single teeth in October 2015 in Mainz, Germany, during which 11 top experts in the field, selected on objective criteria, such as publications, major contributions to the subject of missing single teeth, and citation indices, presented systematic reviews that were consecutively published in the European Journal of Oral Implantology in summer 2016. A systematic review by Kiliaridis et al,6 evaluating all relevant articles reporting on treatment options for congenitally missing lateral incisors between 1975 and 2015 evidenced that “definitive conclusions [about the superiority of orthodontic space closure by canine mesial repositioning and reshaping or by a prosthodontic intervention], cannot be drawn, since randomised controlled trials and more prospective and retrospective studies directly comparing the two therapeutic options” are required. We agree with Dr Kritzler that orthodontic space closure is more advantageous in terms of an earlier overall end of treatment and for avoidance of infraocclusion, especially in young female patients with a vertical skeletal growth pattern, and that implant insertion should be delayed as long as possible. Moreover, if both treatment options for a specific patient are appropriate, orthodontic space closure should be the preferred choice. Nevertheless, we do not agree that peri-implantitis, soft-tissue discoloration, and loss of the facial bone wall over the implant must be regarded as inevitable sequelae. Sufficient orthodontic space opening, correct 3-dimensional implant placement, additive hard-tissue or soft-tissue grafts in case of thin periodontal biotypes, coupled with a meticulously executed prosthodontic protocol of a well-coordinated interdisciplinary team, can create a stable hard and soft peri-implant framework in most patients.7-9 Because our group is interested in shedding more light on the topic of long-term outcomes of treatment for agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors with orthodontic space closure vs space opening, we are currently collecting data from our treated patients 5 to 10 years posttreatment, with the goal to publish a study with comparative long-term results, of which only 5 exist in the current literature.10-14 Ute Schneider Lorenz Moser Marzia Fornasetti Michele Piattella Giuseppe Siciliani Ferrara, Bolzano, and Vicenza, Italy Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:237-8 0889-5406/$36.00 Ó 2017 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.11.013
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
February 2017 Vol 151 Issue 2
238
Readers' forum
REFERENCES 1. Schneider U, Moser L, Fornasetti M, Piattella M, Siciliani G. Esthetic evaluation of implants vs canine substitution in patients with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors: are there any new insights? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150: 416-24. 2. Armbruster PC, Gardiner DM, Whitley JB Jr, Flerra J. The congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisor. Part 1: esthetic judgement of treatment options. World J Orthod 2005;6:369-75. 3. Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Collys K, Cleymaet R, De Rouck T. Immediate single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: 3-year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:746-53. 4. Cabello G, Rioboo M, Fabrega JG. Immediate placement and restoration of implants in the aesthetic zone with a trimodal approach: soft tissue alterations and its relation to gingival biotype. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1094-100. 5. Pini NP, De Marchi LM, Gribel BF, Ramos AL, Furquim LZ, Pascotto RC. Analysis of width/heigth ratio and gingival zenith in patients with bilateral agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17:87-93. 6. Kiliaridis S, Sidira M, Kirmanidou Y, Michalakis K. Treatment options for congenitally missing lateral incisors. Eur J Oral Implantology 2016;9(Suppl):S5-24. 7. Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Frei M, Belser UC. Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up. J Periodontol 2013;84: 1517-27. 8. Jensen SS, Bosshardt DD, Gruber R, Buser D. Long-term stability of contour augmentation in the esthetic zone: histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of 12 human biopsies 14 to 80 months after augmentation. J Periodontol 2014;85: 1549-56. 9. Weigl P, Strangio A. The impact of immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants on hard and soft tissues in the anterior maxilla. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016;9(Supp 1):89-106.
February 2017 Vol 151 Issue 2
10. Robertsson S, Mohlin B. The congenitally missing upper lateral incisor. A retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus restorative treatment. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:697-710. 11. Nordquist GG, McNeill RW. Orthodontic vs restorative treatment of the congenitally absent lateral incisors—long-term periodontal and occlusal evaluation. J Periodontol 1975;46:139-43. 12. DeMarchi LM, Pini NI, Ramos AL, Pascotto RC. Congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors: functional and periodontal aspects in patients treated with implants or space closure and tooth-recontouring. Open Dent J 2012;6:248-54. 13. De-Marchi LM, Pini NI, Ramos AL, Pascotto RC. Smile attractiveness of patients treated for congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors as rated by dentists, laypersons, and the patients themselves. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:540-6. 14. Jamilian A, Perillo L, Rosa M. Missing upper incisors: a retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus implant. Prog Orthod 2015;16:2.
Correction Coro JC, Velasquez RL, Coro IM, Wheeler TT, McGorray SP, and Sato S. Relationship of maxillary 3-dimensional posterior occlusal plane to mandibular spatial position and morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150:140-152 Descriptions of the anterior and posterior occlusal planes (page 141) were incorrect. The section should read: They divided it into anterior and posterior components, with the anterior occlusal plane defined as a line drawn from the incisal edge of the maxillary central incisor to the cusp tip of the maxillary second premolar, and the posterior occlusal plane (POP) as a line from the cusp tip of the maxillary second premolar to the midpoint of the maxillary second molar at the occlusal surface.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Readers' forum
5. Jamilian A, Perillo L, Rosa M. Missing upper incisors: a retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus implant. Prog Orthod 2015;16:5-10. 6. Jemt T, Ahlberg G, Henriksson K, Bondevik O. Tooth movements adjacent to single- implant restorations after more than 15 years of follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:626-32. 7. Andersson B, Bergenblock S, F€ urst B, Jemt T. Long-term function of single-implant restorations: a 17- to 19-year follow-up study on implant infraposition related to the shape of the face and patients’ satisfaction. Clinl Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:471-80. 8. Bergenblock S, Andersson B, F€ urst B, Jemt T. Long-Term followup of CeraOne single-implant restorations: an 18-year follow-up study based on a prospective patient cohort. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:471-9. 9. Dierens M, De Bruyn H, Kisch J, Nilner K, Cosyn J, Vandeweghe S. Prosthetic survival and complication rate of single implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16 to 22 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:117-28. 10. Rosa M, Zachrisson BU. The space-closure alternative for missing maxillary lateral incisors: an update. J Clin Orthod 2010;44: 540-9.
Authors’ response
W
e thank Katja Kritzler for the commentary on our article. We expressed our concern regarding undeniable potentially looming long-term problems with implant-borne crowns in the esthetic zone in both the introduction and the discussion sections of our article. We have acknowledged that the main advantages of orthodontic space closure are that the hard and soft tissue architectures “remain in a natural state that can better respond to the change over time” and that “it is not possible to exclude a potentially developing infraocclusion, especially in patients with poor interincisor stability.”1 However, long-term stability of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla was not the subject of our study. The aim was to repeat the study of Armbruster et al2 from 2005, in which “all 12 cases were photographed after the completion of orthodontic treatment and any restorative dental work,” and not after years in retention, to evaluate whether the introduction of new techniques in implantology and periodontics over the last 10 years has improved the esthetic appeal of implant-borne crowns for congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors, as suggested by various research groups.3-5 Our study clearly shows that the esthetic outcomes in the short term are rated significantly better than 10 years ago—nothing more and nothing less. It was not our intention to interpolate long-term esthetics or functional stability of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla from the study, for which sound scientific evidence is currently not available. We refer to the latest Foundation for Oral Rehabilitation Consensus Conference on the rehabilitation of
missing single teeth in October 2015 in Mainz, Germany, during which 11 top experts in the field, selected on objective criteria, such as publications, major contributions to the subject of missing single teeth, and citation indices, presented systematic reviews that were consecutively published in the European Journal of Oral Implantology in summer 2016. A systematic review by Kiliaridis et al,6 evaluating all relevant articles reporting on treatment options for congenitally missing lateral incisors between 1975 and 2015 evidenced that “definitive conclusions [about the superiority of orthodontic space closure by canine mesial repositioning and reshaping or by a prosthodontic intervention], cannot be drawn, since randomised controlled trials and more prospective and retrospective studies directly comparing the two therapeutic options” are required. We agree with Dr Kritzler that orthodontic space closure is more advantageous in terms of an earlier overall end of treatment and for avoidance of infraocclusion, especially in young female patients with a vertical skeletal growth pattern, and that implant insertion should be delayed as long as possible. Moreover, if both treatment options for a specific patient are appropriate, orthodontic space closure should be the preferred choice. Nevertheless, we do not agree that peri-implantitis, soft-tissue discoloration, and loss of the facial bone wall over the implant must be regarded as inevitable sequelae. Sufficient orthodontic space opening, correct 3-dimensional implant placement, additive hard-tissue or soft-tissue grafts in case of thin periodontal biotypes, coupled with a meticulously executed prosthodontic protocol of a well-coordinated interdisciplinary team, can create a stable hard and soft peri-implant framework in most patients.7-9 Because our group is interested in shedding more light on the topic of long-term outcomes of treatment for agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisors with orthodontic space closure vs space opening, we are currently collecting data from our treated patients 5 to 10 years posttreatment, with the goal to publish a study with comparative long-term results, of which only 5 exist in the current literature.10-14 Ute Schneider Lorenz Moser Marzia Fornasetti Michele Piattella Giuseppe Siciliani Ferrara, Bolzano, and Vicenza, Italy Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:237-8 0889-5406/$36.00 Ó 2017 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.11.013
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
February 2017 Vol 151 Issue 2
238
Readers' forum
REFERENCES 1. Schneider U, Moser L, Fornasetti M, Piattella M, Siciliani G. Esthetic evaluation of implants vs canine substitution in patients with congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors: are there any new insights? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150: 416-24. 2. Armbruster PC, Gardiner DM, Whitley JB Jr, Flerra J. The congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisor. Part 1: esthetic judgement of treatment options. World J Orthod 2005;6:369-75. 3. Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Collys K, Cleymaet R, De Rouck T. Immediate single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla: 3-year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:746-53. 4. Cabello G, Rioboo M, Fabrega JG. Immediate placement and restoration of implants in the aesthetic zone with a trimodal approach: soft tissue alterations and its relation to gingival biotype. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1094-100. 5. Pini NP, De Marchi LM, Gribel BF, Ramos AL, Furquim LZ, Pascotto RC. Analysis of width/heigth ratio and gingival zenith in patients with bilateral agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17:87-93. 6. Kiliaridis S, Sidira M, Kirmanidou Y, Michalakis K. Treatment options for congenitally missing lateral incisors. Eur J Oral Implantology 2016;9(Suppl):S5-24. 7. Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Frei M, Belser UC. Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up. J Periodontol 2013;84: 1517-27. 8. Jensen SS, Bosshardt DD, Gruber R, Buser D. Long-term stability of contour augmentation in the esthetic zone: histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of 12 human biopsies 14 to 80 months after augmentation. J Periodontol 2014;85: 1549-56. 9. Weigl P, Strangio A. The impact of immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants on hard and soft tissues in the anterior maxilla. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016;9(Supp 1):89-106.
February 2017 Vol 151 Issue 2
10. Robertsson S, Mohlin B. The congenitally missing upper lateral incisor. A retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus restorative treatment. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:697-710. 11. Nordquist GG, McNeill RW. Orthodontic vs restorative treatment of the congenitally absent lateral incisors—long-term periodontal and occlusal evaluation. J Periodontol 1975;46:139-43. 12. DeMarchi LM, Pini NI, Ramos AL, Pascotto RC. Congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors: functional and periodontal aspects in patients treated with implants or space closure and tooth-recontouring. Open Dent J 2012;6:248-54. 13. De-Marchi LM, Pini NI, Ramos AL, Pascotto RC. Smile attractiveness of patients treated for congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors as rated by dentists, laypersons, and the patients themselves. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:540-6. 14. Jamilian A, Perillo L, Rosa M. Missing upper incisors: a retrospective study of orthodontic space closure versus implant. Prog Orthod 2015;16:2.
Correction Coro JC, Velasquez RL, Coro IM, Wheeler TT, McGorray SP, and Sato S. Relationship of maxillary 3-dimensional posterior occlusal plane to mandibular spatial position and morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150:140-152 Descriptions of the anterior and posterior occlusal planes (page 141) were incorrect. The section should read: They divided it into anterior and posterior components, with the anterior occlusal plane defined as a line drawn from the incisal edge of the maxillary central incisor to the cusp tip of the maxillary second premolar, and the posterior occlusal plane (POP) as a line from the cusp tip of the maxillary second premolar to the midpoint of the maxillary second molar at the occlusal surface.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics