Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal
Main page Back issues Editorial board Information
December, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 4

CONTENTS

REVIEW

Arthrocentesis techniques used in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: Literature review
Riina Gudova, Ülle Voog-Oras, Oksana Ivask
95-100

SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes after treatment of odontogenic cysts with decompression followed by surgery
Aydin Ozkan, Sara Samur Erguven, Gurkan Rasit Bayar, Metin Sencimen
101 -105

REVIEW

Orthodontic canine substitution vs. implant-supported prosthetic replacement for maxillary permanent lateral incisor agenesis: A systematic review
Justina Šikšnelytė, Raimonda Guntulytė, Kristina Lopatienė
106 -113

SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

Simvastatin in polymer bioscaffold for bone regeneration. An in vitro and in vivo analysis
Swati Gupta, Pratibha Gopalkrishna, Usha Yogendra Nayak, Kishore Ginjupalli, Thayyil Sivaraman Hrishi, Chetana Chandrashekar, Raghu A R, Pallavi K, Lakshmi P
114-120

© 2022 Stomatologija

Stomatologija 2021; 23 (4): 106-13 370 KB

Orthodontic canine substitution vs. implant-supported prosthetic replacement for maxillary permanent lateral incisor agenesis:
A systematic review

Justina Šikšnelytė1, Raimonda Guntulytė2, Kristina Lopatienė3

Summary

Objective. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the results of two treatment methods: space opening for an implant and prosthetic replacement (PR) versus orthodontic space closure (SC) for maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (MLIA).

Material and methods. The protocol of the systematic review is in line with the PRISMA requirements. An electronic search was carried out on July 11, 2021 in Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Plos One databases. The review included research articles published less than 10 years ago, written in English, involving both PR and SC methods in permanent dentition, and comparing and evaluating them.

Results. A total of 1,061 initially identified articles were found, full texts of 38 articles were read and assessed for eligibility, and 7 of them were included in this review. All of the articles evaluated the esthetics; in addition, 3 of them assessed periodontal health, 1 evaluated temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, and 1 evaluated occlusion morphology disorders. One study of 7 found esthetics after SC to be statistically more pleasant, while the others found the results of both techniques to be equally esthetically satisfying. When comparing periodontal status between the groups, one study found gingival recession to be significantly more common in the SC group, while another article revealed that gingival recession and papillary defects were more common in the PR group. The remaining articles stated that there was no TMJ dysfunction, and differences in occlusion morphology disorders were not significant between the groups.

Conclusion. The results of MLIA treatment with SC were more favorable esthetically, but the difference was not statistically significant. There is no statistically significant data related to periodontal health, and neither of the treatment methods caused TMJ or occlusion morphology disorders. If both methods are available, space closure is preferable, although high-quality clinical trials are needed to find more evidence.

Key words: incisor, anodontia, treatment.

Received: 10 02 2021

Accepted for publishing: 20 12 2021


1Faculty of Odontology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

2Faculty of Odontology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

3Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

Address correspondence to Kristina Lopatienė, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Eivenių g. 2, Kaunas, Lithuania.

E-mail address: kristina.lopatiene@lsmuni.lt