Invisible reattachment line
For the dentist, having the chance to perform a reattachment of a tooth fragment, contrary to restoring it with composite, is more convenient, easier and faster in order to exactly restore the tooth in the incisal third, the most vibrant part of the tooth. In the reattachment phase, the exact three-dimensional placement of the coronal fragment is of utmost importance in avoiding corrections afterwards. Therefore, making a bevel along the fracture line in most cases will severely complicate the exact repositioning of the fractured piece; so, reattachment is carried out without beveling. In most of the cases I restored in that manner, the reattachment line is still visible or becomes visible over time. But how to avoid that, and still be certain of an exact three-dimensional reattachment? Making the bevel after reattachment is an easy solution to guarantee invisibility, and, at the same time, accurate repositioning of the coronal fragment. Above all, post reattachment bevel technique offers a significantly higher shear bond strength, resulting in a higher fracture resistance (2). This clinical case will show how to proceed.
Reattachment of the coronal fragment on the tooth is a delicate manoeuvre. The partial can be slippery because of cement or composite or its small size can make it difficult to handle. To stay away from beveling on both the fragment as the tooth provides three-dimensional stability and accuracy while placing the fragment. A misplaced fragment should be avoided because it can only be corrected by sacrificing sound tissue.
The absence of the bevel increases the risk of visibility of the fracture line immediately after treatment or later on. To make a bevel after reattachment reduces visibility and also increases the fracture resistance of the tooth.
Chazine M, Sedda M, Ounsi HF, Paragliola R, Ferrari M, Grandini S. Evaluation of the fracture resistance of reattached incisal fragments using different materials and techniques. Dent Traumatol. 2011 Feb;27(1):15-8.
Strobel S, Hellwig E. The effects of matrix-metallo- proteinases and chlorhexidine on the adhesive bond. Swiss Dent J. 2015;125(2):134-45.
Reis A, Kraul A, Francci C, de Assis TG, Crivelli DD, Oda M et al. Re-attachment of anterior fractured teeth: fracture strength using different materials. Oper Dent 2002;27:6217.
Farik B, Munksgaard EC, Kreiborg S, Andreasen JO. Adhesive bonding of fragmented anterior teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1998 Jun;14(3):119-23.
Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM. Textbook and color atlas of traumatic injuries to the teeth. 3rd ed. St.Louis: Mosby Year-Book ; 1994.
Montagner AF, Sarkis-Onofre R, Pereira-Cenci T, Cenci MS. MMP Inhibitors on Dentin Stability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Aug;93(8):733-43. doi: 10.1177/0022034514538046. Epub 2014 Jun 16.
DiAngelis AJ, Andreasen JO, Ebeleseder KA, Kenny DJ, Trope M, Sigurdsson A, Andersson L, Bourguignon C, Flores MT, Hicks ML, Lenzi AR, Malmgren B, Moule AJ, Pohl Y, Tsukiboshi M. Guidelines for the Management of Traumatic Dental Injuries: 1. Fractures and Luxations of Permanent Teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2016 Oct;38(6):358-368.