Document resource
Dental anomalies cause serious functional and aesthetic issues.1 Consequently, it is essential to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the elements that played a role in their growth. The appearance of dental anomalies in the upper and lower arches has been attributed to specific hereditary causes.2 Additionally, changes in tooth count, dimensions and morphology, and the location of tooth buds can result from disruptions caused during tooth development. These changes can impact both the permanent and deciduous dentition of both jaws.3 Extra teeth in the dentition are referred to as ‘supernumerary teeth’. In the maxilla, supernumerary teeth primarily affect the incisors (59.38% of all circumstances), with mesiodens being the most common (37.5%). In the jaw, incisors accounted for just 28.6% of supernumerary occurrences, whereas premolars accounted for 57.2%.4 A female patient presented to the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry with a chief complaint of foul smell due to food lodgement. The patient expressed dissatisfaction with the appearance of her upper front teeth, which appeared large and malaligned. She was an only child of her parents. According to the mother, there is no history of any known genetic disorder in her family. She was a full-term baby with an uneventful delivery. On intraoral examination, malalignment of the maxillary anterior teeth was observed; all four maxillary incisors were of the same size and shape, contributing to the patient’s aesthetic concern (figure 1). No other abnormalities were noted in the dentition or oral soft tissues. Measurement of the mesiodistal width of the maxillary anterior teeth revealed that all four incisors were identical in size, with a mesiodistal width of 8.8 mm (approximately 8.7±0.2 mm) (figure 2). Radiographic evaluation through an orthopantomogram indicated that the root lengths of these teeth were also uniform (figure 3). The patient and parents were thoroughly informed about the identified anomalies and their potential consequences on the patient’s oral health. Despite the recommendations for further treatment, the patient and parents have declined additional interventions. If there are no apparent functional or cosmetic issues, treatment options for a kid who presents with four maxillary permanent incisors include observation and routine monitoring. It is frequently advised to extract the extra teeth in order to avoid problems like crowding, delayed eruption or aesthetic concerns. In order to correctly align the remaining teeth and address any malocclusion, orthodontic therapy could be necessary after extraction. Crowns and composite contouring are examples of restorative operations that can improve aesthetics, particularly in cases when tooth morphology is uneven. Veneers or other prosthetic alternatives may be taken into consideration when extraction results in issues with spacing or appearance. To address societal concerns about dental appearance or self-esteem, psychological support may also be helpful. This case highlights the importance of a comprehensive clinical and radiographic assessment in paediatric dentistry for identifying and managing such anomalies.