Rehabilitation of Anterior Region Tooth Size Discrepancies After Orthodontic Treatment: A Case Series

Abstract

Multidisciplinary approaches are used to treat aesthetic and functional problems related to teeth. Following orthodontic treatment, patients may require restorative dental treatment for aesthetic adjustments. Especially in maxillary anterior region, direct composite resin restorations which are one of the restorative treatment options following orthodontic treatment are frequently preferred today due to their minimal invasive and conservative nature. In this case report, it was aimed to eliminate the aesthetic problems observed due to tooth size discrepancies in the anterior region of the maxillary arch with direct composite resin restorations after orthodontic treatment. The patients whose orthodontic treatments were about to be completed at the xxxxxxxx University Department of Orthodontics were referred to the Department of Restorative Dentistry for consultation regarding their aesthetic complaints in the anterior maxillary region before debonding. As a result of intraoral examinations of three patients, tooth size discrepancies and consequently polydiastema were observed. Following the evaluation, it was decided to apply direct aesthetic composite resin restorations to the cases. Tooth size discrepancies and diastemas observed after orthodontic treatment were rehabilitated using direct composite restorations. Minimally invasive rehabilitation of aesthetic problems after orthodontic treatment is possible with direct composite resins.

Keywords

• aesthetic
• direct composite restoration
• minimally invasive
• polydiastema
• tooth size discrepancy

References

1. 1. 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 Periodoncia Implantol Rehabil Oral 2019;12(2):106-8.
2. 2. Shen Y, Jiang X, Yu J. The combined orthodontic and restorative treatment for patients with malocclusion and dentition defects: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(35):e35025.
3. 3. Mackenzie, L., Banerjee, A. Minimally invasive direct restorations: a practical guide. Br Dent J 2017;223:163-71.
4. 4. Korkut B, Yanıkoğlu F, Günday M. Direct composite laminate veneers: three case reports. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013;7(2):105-11.
5. 5. Wolff D, Kraus T, Schach C, Pritsch M, Mente J, Staehle HJ, et al. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a clinical evaluation of survival and quality parameters. J Dent. 2010;38(12):1001-9.
6. 6. De Araujo EM Jr, Fortkamp S, Baratieri LN. Closure of diastema and gingival recontouring using direct adhesive restorations: a case report. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2009;21(4):229-40.
7. 7. Goyal A, Nikhil V, Singh R. Diastema Closure in Anterior Teeth Using a Posterior Matrix. Case Rep Dent. 2016;2016:2538526.
8. 8. Cho K, Rajan G, Farrar P, Prentice L, Prusty BG. Dental resin composites: A review on materials to product realizations. Compos B Eng 2022;230:109495.

9. 9. Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Braz Oral Res. 2017;31(suppl 1):e56.
10. 10. Korkut B, Ünal T, Can E. Two-year retrospective evaluation of monoshade universal composites in direct veneer and diastema closure restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(3):525-37.
11. 11. Abdulgani M, Abdulgani A, Muhamad AH. Closing diastemas with resin composite restorations; A case report. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2019;18(3):30-3.
12. 12. Valente MSO, Neto CF, Obeid AT, Furuse AY, Ishikiriama BLC, Ishikiriama SK, Velo MMAC. Direct vs indirect restorations for diastema closure: determining the suitable approach. Gen Dent. 2023;71(5):53-7.