Martínez CPC, Martínez ZJ, Espinosa F, Ávalos EYM

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 215-220
PDF size: 389.47 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This case report shows the successful treatment of a patient with partial anodontia of dental organs 13 and 23 because they have been extracted due to present impactation and poor traction prognosis. This article presents a 29-year-old male class I skeletal patient with convex profile, class III malocclusion, overjet reduction, absence of functional guidance, positive bone-teeth discrepancy in the upper arch and negative in the lower arch. The treatment was carried out with the extractions of the dental organs 34 and 44 for correcting oral dental discrepancies between upper and lower arches; it was done using reciprocal closing of spaces by using elastic chains for both arches in order to achieve a suitable overjet and overbite. The creation of the canine guides was achieved by changing the morphology of the dental organs 14 and 24, which were taken to the position of the absent canines. The total treatment timing for this patient was 24 months. Positive ameloplasties were performed by application of resin aggregates to improve functionality and provide joint health. A favorable treatment for these kinds of cases of canine anodontics in the upper arch is carried out by closing spaces and the morphological characterization of the absent canines by positive in-premolar ameloplasties.

REFERENCES

1. Aguana K, Cohen L. Diagnóstico de caninos retenidos y su importancia en el tratamiento ortodóncico. Revista Latinoamericana de Ortodoncia y Odontopediatria "Ortodoncia.ws edición electrónica junio 2011. Consultada en: www.ortodoncia.ws.

2. Santoyo DC, Calleja AI, García HJ, Díaz RRM. Prevalencia de caninos superiores retenidos en pacientes mexicanos mayores de 14 años de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Tecnológica de México. Rev ADM. 2001; 58 (4): 138-142.

3. Ugalde MFJ, González LR. Prevalencia de retenciones de caninos en pacientes tratados en la clínica de ortodoncia de UNITEC. Rev ADM. 1999; 56 (2): 49-58.

4. Yavuz MS, Aras MH, Büyükkurt MC, Tozoglu S. Impacted mandibular canines. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007; 8 (7): 78-85.

5. Mutan-Hamdi A, Koray Halicioglu, Muhammed-Selim Yavuz, Murat Caglaroglu. Evaluation of surgical-orthodontic treatments on impacted mandibular canines. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 16 (7): e925-928.

6. Pacheco C, Dobles AL. Caso clínico: caninos en posición de laterales, resultado estético. Revista Idental. 2014; 99 (6): 427-838.

7. Egido MS, Arnau MC, Juárez EI, Jané-Salas E, Marí RA, López-López J. Caninos incluidos, tratamiento odontológico. Revisión de la literatura. Av Odontoestomatol. 2013; 29 (5): 227-238.

8. Valdivia J. Oclusión en prótesis sobre implante. Rev Prot Oseointegr. 2000; 4: 41-59.

9. Morales L, Osorio E. Discrepancia óseo-dentaria severa. Tratamiento ortodóncico sin extracciones. Revista Gaceta Dental [Internet]. 2009 [Citado 2016 febrero 15]: disponible en: http://www.gacetadental.com/2009/03/discrepancia-seo-dentaria-severatratamiento-ortodncico-sin-extracciones-31297/#.

10. Domínguez J, Acuña J, Rojas M, Bahamondes J, Matus S. Estudio de asociación entre enfermedades sistémicas y el fracaso de implantes dentales. Rev Clin Periodoncia Implantol Rehabil Oral. 2013; 6 (1): 9-13.

11. Sada ME, Mampaso DC. Consideraciones básicas en implantología oral. Indicaciones y contraindicaciones. Pronóstico, complicaciones y fracasos. Tratamiento. Gaceta Dental. 2000; 106: 38-66.

12. Santiesteban-Ponciano FA. Analysis in calculating Osseo dental discrepancy manually and in I model analysis 2 application. Odontol Sanmarquina. 2016; 19(2): 19-23.

13. Alves Nilton. Morphometric Study of the Dental Roots of Permanent Lower Anterior Teeth in Brazilian Individuals. Int J Morphol. 2015; 33 (1): 210-212. Available from: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022015000100033&lng=en.