When restoring teeth #1 with class III mobility and furcal involvement, what is the best approach when teeth #2 and #3 are missing?

When restoring teeth #1 with class III mobility and furcal involvement, what is the best approach when teeth #2 and #3 are missing?

• A. fixed bridge #1-4
• B. place two implant-supported crowns for #2 and #3; frequent recall to re-eval #1
• C. ext #1; implants for #2, #3, or both
• D. maintain current teeth without restoration

Answer: (C)

The best approach when dealing with tooth #1, which exhibits class III mobility and furcal involvement, involves understanding both the condition of the tooth and the broader implications for dental restoration. In this scenario, extracting tooth #1 is a rational choice given its poor prognosis due to significant mobility and furcal involvement, indicating that it is likely not salvageable and could lead to further complications if left untreated. Once tooth #1 is extracted, placing implants for teeth #2 and #3 is a viable solution. This not only addresses the missing teeth with stable restorations but also helps in maintaining the overall arch integrity and occlusion. It positions the patient to avoid future complications and provides a more predictable long-term outcome than attempting to restore a hopeless tooth. Choosing to maintain the current teeth without restoration disregards the mobility and furcal involvement of tooth #1, which could lead to severe periodontal issues and might compromise the overall dental health of the patient. The option of placing a fixed bridge doesn't appropriately address the critical condition of tooth #1. It would likely not succeed in the long term given its mobility. Therefore, extracting tooth #1 and considering implants for the adjacent missing teeth offers the most sound and effective approach in this clinical situation.

The best approach when dealing with tooth #1, which exhibits class III mobility and furcal involvement, involves understanding both the condition of the tooth and the broader implications for dental restoration. In this scenario, extracting tooth #1 is a rational choice given its poor prognosis due to significant mobility and furcal involvement, indicating that it is likely not salvageable and could lead to further complications if left untreated.

Once tooth #1 is extracted, placing implants for teeth #2 and #3 is a viable solution. This not only addresses the missing teeth with stable restorations but also helps in maintaining the overall arch integrity and occlusion. It positions the patient to avoid future complications and provides a more predictable long-term outcome than attempting to restore a hopeless tooth.

Choosing to maintain the current teeth without restoration disregards the mobility and furcal involvement of tooth #1, which could lead to severe periodontal issues and might compromise the overall dental health of the patient. The option of placing a fixed bridge doesn't appropriately address the critical condition of tooth #1. It would likely not succeed in the long term given its mobility. Therefore, extracting tooth #1 and considering implants for the adjacent missing teeth offers the most sound and effective approach in this clinical situation.