Maintaining tooth-implant distance following root amputation of a compromised adjacent tooth: A clinical case report: ‡ Center for Innovation and Precision Dentistry (CiPD), School of Dental Medicine, School of Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA. § Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA ‡ Center for Innovation and Precision Dentistry (CiPD), School of Dental Medicine, School of Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA. § Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA: ‡ Center for Innovation and Precision Dentistry (CiPD), School of Dental Medicine, School of Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA. § Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA ‡ Center for Innovation and Precision Dentistry (CiPD), School of Dental Medicine, School of Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA. § Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.

: Root amputation of a compromised molar facilitated space provision for placement of a standard diameter implant. Adequate tooth-implant distance was achieved and crestal bone levels were maintained 1-year post-operatively. INTRODUCTION: Edentulous sites with limited horizontal tooth-implant distance pose a challenge to clinicians. This case report describes root amputation of an adjacent compromised molar to maintain an optimal tooth-implant distance CASE PRESENTATION: A 41-year-old female was referred for extraction and implant placement to replace her left, maxillary second premolar (#13) which had been diagnosed with a vertical root fracture. Extraction and ridge preservation of #13 was completed without complication. The 4-month post-surgical clinical examination revealed a narrow mesial-distal distance (5.69mm) of the edentulous space (#13), which was influenced by the degree of divergence of the mesial buccal root of tooth #14. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis verified a periapical lesion on the mesial-buccal root of tooth #14. The amputation of the endodontically compromised mesial-buccal root of #14 was treatment planned to provide space and facilitate placement of a standard diameter implant without compromising the implant or adjacent teeth. Crestal bone levels were verified and maintained at the 1 year post-operative follow-up. CONCLUSION: The findings of the case report demonstrate how root amputation of a compromised molar is an alternative solution for managing spatial limitations in contemporary implant dentistry. More studies are required to assess the reliability and long-term success of this approach. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.