European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 205–210 | Cite as

Removable partial dentures vs overdentures in children with ectodermal dysplasia: two case reports

  • G. Maroulakos
  • I. I. Artopoulou
  • M. V. Angelopoulou
  • D. Emmanouil
Case Report
  • 481 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Ectodermal dysplasia (ED) represents a disorder group characterised by abnormal development of the ectodermal derivatives. Removable partial dentures (RPD), complete dentures (CD) or overdentures (OD) are most often the treatment of choice for young affected patients. Prosthetic intervention is of utmost importance in the management of ED patients, as it resolves problems associated with functional, aesthetic, and psychological issues, and improves a patient’s quality of life. However, few studies present the principles and guidelines that can assist in the decision-making process of the most appropriate removable prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to suggest a simple treatment decision-making algorithm for selecting an effective and individualised rehabilitative treatment plan, considering different parameters.

Case reports

The cases and treatment of two young ED patients are described and each one was treated with either RPDs or ODs.

Follow-up

Periodic recalls were employed to manage problems, and monitor the changes associated with occlusion and fit of the prostheses in relation to each patient’s growth. Both patients were followed up for more than 2 years and reported significant improvement in their appearance, masticatory function, and social behaviour as a result of the prosthetic rehabilitation.

Conclusion

The main factors guiding the decision process towards the choice of an RPD or an OD are the presence of posterior natural teeth, facial aesthetics, lip support, number and size of existing natural teeth, and the occlusal vertical dimension.

Keywords

Ectodermal dysplasia Prosthetic rehabilitation Removable partial denture Overdenture Hypodontia Children 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals and their parents for whom identifying information is included in this article. The authors would like to thank Dr. T. Gerard Bradley, Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies at Marquette University School of Dentistry for reviewing and editing the manuscript.

References

  1. Artopoulou I, Martin JW, Suchko GD. Prosthodontic rehabilitation of a 10-year-old ectodermal dysplasia patient using provisional implants. Pediatr Dent. 2009;31:52–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aydinbelge M, Gumus HO, Sekerci AE, Demetoglu U, Etoz OA. Implants in children with hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia: an alternative approach to esthetic management: case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2013;35:441–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergendal B. Orodental manifestations in ectodermal dysplasia—a review. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A:2465–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bidra AS, Martin JW, Feldman E. Complete denture prosthodontics in children with ectodermal dysplasia: review of principles and techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010;31:426–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonilla ED, Guerra L, Luna O. Overdenture prosthesis for oral rehabilitation of hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia: a case report. Quintessence Int. 1997;28:657–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dall’Oca S, Ceppi E, Pompa G, Polimeni A. X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia: a ten-year case report and clinical considerations. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2008;9:14–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Della Valle D, Chevitarese AB, Maia LC, Farinhas JA. Alternative rehabilitation treatment for a patient with ectodermal dysplasia. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2004;28:103–106.Google Scholar
  8. Guckes AD, Brahim JS, McCarthy GR, Rudy SF, Cooper LF. Using endosseous dental implants for patients with ectodermal dysplasia. J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;122:59–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hickey AJ, Salter M. Prosthodontic and psychological factors in treating patients with congenital and craniofacial defects. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;95:392–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hickey AJ, Vergo TJ Jr. Prosthetic treatments for patients with ectodermal dysplasia. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86:364–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ioannidou-Marathiotou I, Kotsiomiti E, Gioka C. The contribution of orthodontics to the prosthodontic treatment of ectodermal dysplasia: a long-term clinical report. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141:1340–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Itin PH. Ectodermal dysplasia: thoughts and practical concepts concerning disease classification—the role of functional pathways in the molecular genetic diagnosis. Dermatology. 2013;226:111–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kearns G, Sharma A, Perrott D, et al. Placement of endosseous implants in children and adolescents with hereditary ectodermal dysplasia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88:5–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Khazaie R, Berroeta EM, Borrero C, Torbati A, Chee W. Five-year follow-up treatment of an ectodermal dysplasia patient with maxillary anterior composites and mandibular denture: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2010;19:294–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Klineberg I, Cameron A, Hobkirk J, et al. Rehabilitation of children with ectodermal dysplasia. Part 2: an international consensus meeting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2013;28:1101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kramer FJ, Baethge C, Tschernitschek H. Implants in children with ectodermal dysplasia: a case report and literature review. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2007;18:140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NFED. Scientific Advisory Board: Parameters of Oral Health Care for Individuals affected by Ectodermal Dysplasia Syndromes, Mascoutah, IL. National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias. 2003:1–28.Google Scholar
  18. Nowak AJ. Dental treatment for patients with ectodermal dysplasias. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1988;24:243–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pae A, Kim K, Kim HS, Kwon KR. Overdenture restoration in a growing patient with hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia: a clinical report. Quintessence Int. 2011;42:235–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pigno MA, Blackman RB, Cronin RJ Jr, Cavazos E. Prosthodontic management of ectodermal dysplasia: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:541–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinheiro M, Freire-Maia N. Ectodermal dysplasias: a clinical classification and a causal review. Am J Med Genet. 1994;53:153–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rockman RA, Hall KB, Fiebiger M. Magnetic retention of dental prostheses in a child with ectodermal dysplasia. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:610–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sakai VT, Oliveira TM, Pessan JP, Santos CF, Machado MA. Alternative oral rehabilitation of children with hypodontia and conical tooth shape: a clinical report. Quintessence Int. 2006;37:725–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Shigli A, Reddy RP, Hugar SM, Deshpande D. Hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia: a unique approach to esthetic and prosthetic management: a case report. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2005;23:31–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Vergo TJ Jr. Prosthodontics for pediatric patients with congenital/developmental orofacial anomalies: a long-term follow-up. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86:342–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Maroulakos
    • 1
  • I. I. Artopoulou
    • 2
  • M. V. Angelopoulou
    • 3
  • D. Emmanouil
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Prosthodontics, Department of General Dental Sciences, School of DentistryMarquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Prosthodontics, School of DentistryNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Developmental Sciences, School of DentistryMarquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations