Frequency of Direct Composite Restorations to Anterior Teeth After Orthodontic Treatment: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency rate of applied direct composite restorations to the upper anterior teeth of patients to improve the aesthetic appearance after orthodontic treatment. Methods: Records of 1080 patients whose orthodontic treatment was completed in the last 5 years were examined. In total, 104 patients with direct composite restorations of their upper anterior teeth because of a tooth-size discrepancy, tooth-shape malformation, missing lateral incisors, missing central incisors, black triangles, and transposition after orthodontic treatment were identified. Information such as gender, age, Angle classification, and which tooth or teeth were restored and for what reason were recorded. Mean ± standard deviation or n (%) was used for the descriptive variables and the chi-square test was used for the categorical variables. Statistical significance was accepted as P < .05. Results: In the present study, the frequency rate of direct composite restoration to the upper anterior teeth was found to be 9.6% among all patients whose orthodontic treatment was completed. When the reasons for restoration were evaluated, the most common reasons were determined as tooth-size discrepancy (60.6%), malformation (18.3%), and missing lateral incisors (14.4%). In patients with direct composite restorations, the most common reason for restoration in the right (65.2%) and left canine (66.7%) teeth were missing lateral incisors; in the right (80.6%) and left (74.3%) central and right (77.8%) and left (78.7%) lateral teeth, the tooth-size discrepancy was detected. Conclusion: In some orthodontic cases, direct composite restorations are needed for an appro- priate aesthetic appearance. Keywords: Anterior diastema, direct composite restoration, orthodontic treatment ÖZ Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortodontik tedavi sonrası estetik görünümü iyileştirmek için hastala- rın üst ön dişlerine uygulanan direkt kompozit restorasyonların sıklığını değerlendirmektir. Yöntemler: Son beş yıl içinde ortodontik tedavisi tamamlanan 1080 hastanın tüm kayıtları ince- lendi. Ortodontik tedavi sonrası diş–boyut uyuşmazlığı, diş–şekil bozukluğu, lateral diş eksikliği, santral diş eksikliği, siyah üçgen oluşumu ve transpozisyon nedeniyle üst anterior dişlerine direkt kompozit restorasyon yapılan 104 hasta tespit edildi. Cinsiyet, yaş, Angle sınıflandırması, hangi diş veya dişlerin ne sebeple restore edildiği gibi bilgiler kaydedildi. Tanımlayıcı değişkenler için orta- lama ± standart sapma veya n (%), kategorik değişkenler için ki-kare testi kullanıldı. İstatistiksel anlamlılık P < ,05 olarak kabul edildi. Bulgular: Bu çalışmada ortodontik tedavisi tamamlanan tüm hastalar arasında, üst ön dişlerine direkt kompozit restorasyon yapılma sıklığı %9,6 olarak bulundu. Restorasyon nedenleri değerlen- dirildiğinde, en sık olarak diş-boyut uyuşmazlığı (%60,6), diş-şekil bozukluğu (%18,3) ve lateral diş eksikliği (%14,4) belirlendi. Direkt kompozit restorasyon yapılan hastalarda, sağ (%65,2) ve sol kanin (%66,7) dişlerde en sık restoras- yon uygulama sebebi lateral diş eksikliği; sağ (%80,6) – sol (%74,3) santral ve sağ (%77,8) – sol (%78,7) lateral dişlerde ise diş – boyut uyuşmazlığı tespit edildi. Sonuç: Bazı ortodontik vakalarda, uygun estetik görünümü sağlamak için direkt kompozit restorasyonlara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Anterior diastema, direkt kompozit restorasyon, ortodontik tedavi

Keywords

• Anterior diastema
• direct composite restoration
• orthodontic treatment

References

1. 1. Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J. Orthodontics. Part 1: who needs ortho- dontics? Br Dent J. 2003;195(8):433-437. [CrossRef]
2. 2. O’Mahony G, Millett DT, Barry MK, McIntyre GT, Cronin MS. Tooth size discrepancies in Irish orthodontic patints among different malocclu- sion groups. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):130-133. [CrossRef]
3. 3. Bolton WA. The clinical application of a tooth-size analysis. Am J Orthod. 1962;48(7):504-529. [CrossRef]
4. 4. Comba A, Vergano EA, Baldi A, et al. 5-year retrospective evaluation of direct composite restorations in orthodontically treated patients. J Dent. 2021;104:103510. [CrossRef]
5. 5. Akehashi S, Takahashi R, Nikaido T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Enhance- ment of dentin bond strength of resin cement using new resin coat- ing materials. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(6):955-962. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Durán G, Vivar F, Tisi J, Henríquez I. The use of direct composite resin to close maxillary midline diastema complementary to orthodontic treatment. Rev Clin Period Implantol Rehabil Oral. 2019;12(2):106-108. [CrossRef] 7. Mortensen MG, Kiyak HA, Omnell L. Patient and parent understand-ing of informed consent in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ethics Committee Approval: Ethical approval of the study was obtained from Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Date: 10.01.2020, Number: 95th Meeting, 44th Decision). Orthop. 2003;124(5):541-550. [CrossRef] 8. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2000:170. 9. Smith SS, Buschang PH, Watanabe E. Interarch tooth size relation- ships of 3 populations: ‘Does Bolton’s analysis apply?’ Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(2):169-174. [CrossRef]
7. 10. Jabri MA, Wu S, Zhang Y, Ma J, Wang L. A review on comparison of tooth size discrepancies among Angle\'s class I, II, and III malocclu- sion: is there a significance? J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(8):994- 999. [CrossRef]
8. 11. Omar H, Alhajrasi M, Felemban N, Hassan A. Dental arch dimensions, form and tooth size ratio among a Saudi sample. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(1):86-91. [CrossRef]

9. 12. Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth-size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(4):303-307. [CrossRef]
10. 13. Turri de Castro Ribeiro T, Petri Feitosa MC, Almeida Penhavel R, et al. Extreme maxillomandibular discrepancy in unilateral cleft lip and palate: longitudinal follow-up in a patient with mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;154(2):294-304. [CrossRef]
11. 14. Nie Q, Lin J. Comparison of intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(5):539-544. [CrossRef]
12. 15. Ta TA, Ling JY, Hägg U. Tooth-size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups of Southern Chinese children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120(5):556-558. [CrossRef]
13. 16. Alkofide E, Hashim H. Intermaxillary tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion classes: a comparative study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002;26(4):383-387. [CrossRef]
14. 17. Laino A, Quaremba G, Paduano S, Stanzione S. Prevalence of tooth size discrepancy among different malocclusion groups. Prog Orthod. 2003;4:37-44. [CrossRef]
15. 18. Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA, Memili B. Intermaxillary tooth size dis- crepancy and malocclusion: is there a relation? Angle Orthod. 2005;75(2):208-213. [CrossRef]
16. 19. Hua F, He H, Ngan P, Bouzid W. Prevalence of pegshaped maxillary permanent lateral incisors: A metaanalysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(1):97-109. [CrossRef] 20. Andrade DCM, Loureiro CA, Araújo VE, Riera R, Atallah AN. Treatment for agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013;16(3):129-136. [CrossRef]
17. 21. Ngoc VTN, Tran DK, Dung TM, et al. Perceptions of dentists and non- professionals on some dental factors affecting smile aesthetics: A study from Vietnam. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5): 1638. [CrossRef]
18. 22. Kurth JR, Kokich VG. Open gingival embrasures after orthodontic treatment in adults: prevalence and etiology. Am J Orthod Dentofa- cial Orthop. 2001;120(2):116-123. [CrossRef]
19. 23. Clark JR, Hutchinson I, Sandy JR. Functional occlusion: II. The role of articulators in orthodontics. J Orthod. 2001;28(2):173-177. [CrossRef]
20. 24. Shetty S, Bhat V. Prevalence of different gingival biotypes in individu- als with varying forms of maxillary central incisors: a survey. J Dent Implants. 2013;3(2):116. [CrossRef]
21. 25. Wu YJ, Tu YK, Huang SM, Chan CP. The influence of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence of the inter- proximal dental papilla. Chang Gung Med J. 2003;26(11):822-828.
22. 26. Mattos BSC, Carvalho JCM, Matusita M, Alves APPP. Tooth transpo- sition–A literature review and a clinical case. Braz J Oral Sci. 2006;5(16):953-957.
23. 27. Finkelstein T, Shapira Y, Pavlidi AM, et al. Canine transposition–preval ence, distribution and treatment considerations among orthodontic patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020;44(4):268-273. [CrossRef]
24. 28. Shapira Y, Kuftinec MM. Maxillary tooth transpositions: characteris- tic features and accompanying dental anomalies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(2):127-134. [CrossRef]
25. 29. Ittipuriphat I, Leevailoj C. Anterior space management: interdiscipli- nary concepts. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(1):16-30. [CrossRef]
26. 30. Frese C, Schiller P, Staehle HJ, Wolff D. Recontouring teeth and clos- ing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up. J Dent. 2013;41(11):979-985. [CrossRef]
27. 31. Demirci M, Tuncer S, Öztaş E, Tekçe N, Uysal ÖA. A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(9):2187-2199. [CrossRef]