Natallia Cristina Roberto Tiago
Mestranda em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID: 0009-0002-0359-7001

Matheus Menezes da Silva
Mestrando em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID: 0000-0002-2389-3601

Miqueias Santos Bispo
Mestrando em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID: 0009-0004-260-7231

Rafael Fidêncio de Lima
Mestrando em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID: 0009-0006-7757-731X

Erika Larissa Andrade Martinez Venâncio
Mestranda em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID: 0009-0005-8037-0187

José Carlos Felix
Mestrando em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID:0009-0001-7790-1400

Lucia Beatriz Belluomini
Mestranda em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID:0009-0008-3013-9325

Lilian Hasimoto
Mestranda em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID: 0009-0005-8037-0187

Julia Lima Sidaoui
Mestranda em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID:0009-0000-6743-71141

Paulo Victor Guedes de Carvalho Peleteiro
Mestre em Implantodontia, SLM
ORCID:0000-0002-2634-5221

Julia de Almeida Smanio
Mestre e Doutora em Implantodontia, USP
ORCID: 0009-0009-3352-4066

Rafael Ortega Lopes
Mestre e Doutor em Implantodontia, UNICAMP
ORCID: 0000-0003-0028-611X

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71440/2675-5610.10.5.25.646-648.art   

RESUMO

Objetivo: Analisar a eficácia dos implantes dentários no tratamento da agenesia dentária em pacientes jovens, considerando fatores como idade, crescimento ósseo e abordagem multidisciplinar. Material e Métodos: Revisão da literatura científica publicada entre 1971 e 2024, utilizando as bases de dados PubMed, Scopus e Web of Science. Foram incluídos estudos retrospectivos, prospectivos, revisões sistemáticas e relatos de caso. Os critérios de inclusão envolveram pesquisas com avaliação de implantes dentários em pacientes jovens (< 21 anos) com agenesia dentária. Estudos com amostras exclusivamente adultas ou sem avaliação de desfechos clínicos foram excluídos. A qualidade dos estudos foi avaliada por meio da Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (para estudos observacionais) e da Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (para ensaios clínicos randomizados). Resultados: A análise incluiu 15 estudos, sendo 7 retrospectivos, 4 prospectivos, 3 relatos de caso e 1 revisão sistemática. As taxas de sucesso variaram entre 75% e 92%, dependendo do tipo de agenesia e do planejamento cirúrgico. O crescimento ósseo foi um fator determinante para o sucesso do implante, com estudos indicando que a colocação precoce pode resultar em anquilose e comprometimento estético. Pacientes com displasia ectodérmica hipohidrótica mostraram bons resultados com implantes, mas exigiram abordagens personalizadas. Conclusão: Os implantes dentários são uma opção viável para pacientes jovens com agenesia dentária, desde que o crescimento ósseo seja cuidadosamente avaliado. O planejamento multidisciplinar e o uso de protocolos individualizados são essenciais para o sucesso do tratamento.

Palavras-chave: Anodontia, Implantes dentários, Crescimento ósseo, Adolescentes.

Treatment of tooth agenesia with dental implants in young patients: a literature review

ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of dental implants in the treatment of dental agenesis in young patients, considering factors such as age, bone growth, and multidisciplinary approaches. Material and Methods: A literature review was conducted on studies published between 1971 and 2024 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Retrospective and prospective studies, systematic reviews, and case reports were included. The inclusion criteria focused on studies evaluating dental implants in young patients (<21 years) with dental agenesis. Studies with exclusively adult samples or without clinical outcome evaluations were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for observational studies) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized clinical

trials). Results: A total of 15 studies were analyzed, including 7 retrospective studies, 4 prospective studies, 3 case reports, and 1 systematic review. Success rates ranged from 75% to 92%, depending on the type of agenesis and surgical planning. Bone growth was a determining factor for implant success, with studies indicating that early placement may lead to ankylosis and esthetic compromise. Patients with hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia showed good results with implants but required personalized approaches. Conclusion: Dental implants are a viable option for young patients with dental agenesis, provided that bone growth is carefully evaluated. Multidisciplinary planning and the use of individualized protocols are essential for treatment success.

Keywords: Anodontia, Dental implants, Bone growth, Adolescents.

Referências

1. Al Najam Y, Tahmaseb A, Wiryasaputra D, Wolvius E, Dhamo B. Dental implant outcomes in young patients with congenital versus non-congenital missing teeth. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00362-7
2. Brånemark PI. Käkrekonstruktion och benförankrad bestsättning. Lakartidningen. 1971;68:3105–16.
3. Biggerstaff RH. The orthodontic management of congenitally absent maxillary lateral incisors and second premolars: a case report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;102:537-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70071-h
4. Bondevik O. Growth changes in the cranial base and the face: a longitudinal cephalometric study of linear and angular changes in adult Norwegians. Eur J Orthod. 1995;17:525-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/17.6.525
5. Casa-Ruiz MD, Català-Pizarro M, Borrás-Aviéó C, et al. Implants as a treatment alternative in children with multiple agenesis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2023;15(4):e324-e337. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.60168
6. Ely BM, Tavares CAE. What is the appropriate age for dental implant placement? Dental Press Implantol. 2014;8:91-99.
7. Ferrés-Amat E, Guinot-Jimeno F, Veloso-Durán A, et al. Retrospective analysis of 1311 oral surgery procedures in a pediatric hospital in Barcelona: a study of their characteristics and age-related diagnoses. J Clin Med. 2024;13(18):5427. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185427
8. Grün P, Pfaffeneder-Mantai F, Leunig N, et al. Bimaxillary fixed implant-supported zirconium oxide prosthesis therapy of an adolescent patient with non-syndromic oligodontia and two WNT10 variants: a case report. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024;86(5):3072-3081. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000001936
9. Hadrowicz J, Hadrowicz P, Gesing A, Kozakiewicz M. Age-dependent alteration in bone surrounding dental implants. Dent Med Probl. 2014;51:27-33.
10. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
11. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of survival rates and incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a 5-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(2):2-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
12. Lambert F, Botilde G, Lecloux G, Rompen E. Effectiveness of temporary implants in teenage patients: a prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(9):1152-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12931
13. Lauwers L, Raoul G, Nicot R. Complexity of pre-implant surgery to achieve implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation in oligodontia patients: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1039. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04827-0
14. Lekholm U, Jemt T. Principles for single tooth replacement. In: Albrektsson T, Zarb G. The Brånemark Osseointegrated Implant. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989:117-126.
15. Lopes A, Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, et al. The NobelGuide® All-on-4® treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a retrospective report on the 7-years clinical and 5-years radiographic outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;19(2):233–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12456
16. Oliveira GE, Pelegrine HCL, Barros-Filho LAB, et al. State of the art in the treatment of congenital agenesis with implant-supported prostheses: a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach. Case Rep Dent. 2024;2024:5901688. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5901688
17. Plakwicz P, Fudalej P, Czochrowska EM. Transplant vs implant in a patient with agenesis of both maxillary lateral incisors: A 9-year follow-up. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(5):751-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.008