Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 5648  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 199-204  

Mini-implant assisted gummy smile and deep bite correction

Eswar Dental Clinic, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Date of Submission14-Jul-2020
Date of Decision26-Sep-2020
Date of Acceptance18-Oct-2020
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Venkata Naga Sravanthi Jonnalagadda
Eswar Dental Clinic, Mig-276, Road No. 4, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad - 500 085, Telangana
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_630_20

Rights and Permissions

This article demonstrates the noninvasive means of correction of gummy smile and deep bite by using mini-implants in a relapsed patient. Intrusion of the maxillary arch was achieved by using mini-implants in the anterior and posterior region. Significant reduction in the gingival and incisal display was seen with improved smile esthetics and ideal overbite and overjet by the end of the treatment. The aim of the article is to present a case where gummy smile was effectively treated by mini-implants without undergoing invasive surgical procedures.

Keywords: Deep bite, gummy smile, mini-implants

How to cite this article:
Reddy S B, Jonnalagadda VN. Mini-implant assisted gummy smile and deep bite correction. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12:199-204

How to cite this URL:
Reddy S B, Jonnalagadda VN. Mini-implant assisted gummy smile and deep bite correction. Contemp Clin Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 3];12:199-204. Available from:

   Introduction Top

Gummy smile is a major esthetic concern which can be related to various intraoral and five extraoral factors. It is necessary to diagnose the cause associated with gummy smile, in order to provide the appropriate treatment modalities.[1] Gummy smile due to anterior vertical maxillary excess or dentoalveolar extrusion could be effectively corrected with orthognathic surgery by LeFort maxillary impaction.[2],[3] The advent of mini-implants in orthodontics has proven to be an alternative treatment solution to patients who are reluctant to undergo invasive orthognathic surgery.[4],[5] Gummy smile, associated with deep bite could be corrected by relative mechanics, that is, by the intrusion of anterior teeth or extrusion of posterior teeth or a combination of both. Stability of the treatment corrected by the extrusion of posterior teeth in nongrowing individuals is questionable.[6],[7],[8] Mini-implants produce true intrusion of upper incisors, thereby increasing the chances of stability. Mini-screw implants are increasingly being used by orthodontists as the most favorable treatment option for the intrusion of teeth and correction of deep bite.[9],[10] Owing to their small dimensions, they provide the benefit of immediate loading, multiple placement sites, relatively simple placement and removal, placement in interdental areas where traditional implants cannot be placed.[11]

   Diagnosis and Treatment Plan Top

A 25-year-old female patient, who is an endodontist, reported to our clinic with a chief complaint of gummy smile. She underwent orthodontic treatment with all first premolar extractions 15 years back. On extraoral examination, she presented with convex profile, incompetent lips and full incisor exposure at rest, and excessive gingival display in both anterior and posterior regions upon smiling, short upper lip relative to commissure height presenting a reverse-resting upper lip line. On intraoral examination, she has Angle's Class I molar and canine relation on right and left sides, anterior deep bite with increased curve of spee and minimal spacing in the maxillary anterior region and a well-aligned lower arch with the normal curve of spee [Figure 1]. On cephalometric examination, the patient has skeletal Class II jaw bases with retrognathic mandible (SNB = 78.3°, ANB = 6.3°), average growth pattern (SNMP = 33.1°), proclined upper anterior teeth (interincisal angle = 121.8°), anterior maxillary excess (upper incisor to nasal floor = 35 mm), posterior maxillary excess (upper molar to nasal floor = 30 mm), average upper lip length (19.3 mm), and upper lip strain of 2 mm with lip incompetency of 6 mm [Table 1]. Orthopantomogram shows missing all 1st premolars due to the history of extraction during previous orthodontic treatment and wisdom teeth [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Pretreatment extra-oral photographs and intra-oral photographs

Click here to view
Figure 2: Pretreatment lateral cephalogram and orthopantomogram

Click here to view
Table 1: Comparison of pre- and post-treatment cephalometric values

Click here to view

Based on all the above findings, the patient is diagnosed to have Skeletal Class II with Angle's Class I malocclusion, anterior deep bite with gummy smile. Considering the decently aligned lower arch, treatment was planned only on the upper arch. Although there was no cephalometric suggestion of vertical maxillary excess, considering normal upper lip length and excessive curve of spee, treatment was planned to disproportionately intrude the maxillary anterior and posterior teeth. Treatment objectives were to level the upper arch, to correct anterior deep bite and anterior gummy smile by intrusion of the anterior teeth using mini-implants, to correct posterior gummy smile using buccal and palatal mini-implants.

   Treatment Progress Top

Monocrystalline 0.022 × 0.025 slot brackets were bonded on the anterior teeth and 0.022 × 0.025 slot metal brackets on the posterior teeth. A progression through continuous NiTi wires was initiated starting with 0.016 NiTi. For 7 months, alignment of maxillary teeth was progressed with gradual increases in arch wires and continued till 19 × 25 stainless steel arch wire was reached. Mini-implants of 1.4 mm × 7 mm were placed between maxillary central and lateral incisors for the intrusion of anterior teeth and mini-implants of 1.8 mm × 8 mm were placed between maxillary first molar and second premolar on both buccal and palatal sides for intrusion of posterior teeth [Figure 3] and [Figure 4]. A force of 50–60 g in the anterior region and 80–100 g in the posterior region was applied onto the arch wires using the elastic chains. Unfortunately, the mini-implants placed on the palatal side failed a couple of times which forced us to carry on the intrusion of the posterior arch using only buccal mini-implants. The consequences of using mini-implants only on the buccal side were evident, as the posterior teeth started flaring buccally, few months after application of intrusive forces from buccal min-implants on to the arch wire [Figure 5]. Anterior deep bite was overcorrected to counteract relapse [Figure 6]. After the completion of orthodontic treatment, surgical crown lengthening was done on the lingual side to establish proper crown height and to allow for the placement of fixed lingual retainer [Figure 7].
Figure 3: Photographs showing mini-implants in the anterior and posterior regions

Click here to view
Figure 4: Photographs showing adequate bite opening

Click here to view
Figure 5: Photographs showing buccal flaring of molars

Click here to view
Figure 6: Overcorrection achieved

Click here to view
Figure 7: Gingivectomy done on palatal gingiva

Click here to view

   Treatment Results Top

Favorable facial changes were observed with harmonious relationship of the facial soft tissue. The patient showed an esthetic smile with ideal amount of tooth structure displayed and the incisal line running along the border of the lower lip. Intra-orally, a well-interdigitated buccal occlusion with a Class I canine and molar relation was maintained. Ideal overjet and overbite were established [Figure 8]. Cephalometric radiographs and superimpositions showed a reduction in the proclination of upper anterior teeth, intrusion of upper anterior teeth by 3.9 mm and posterior teeth by 1.5 mm, reduction of the upper lip strain, and incompetency by 3 mm [Figure 9], [Figure 10] and [Table 1]. Posttreatment panoramic radiograph showed good root paralleling. Although the forces were within the physiologic limits, some amount of external root resorption was seen at the apices of upper central incisors [Figure 9]. The patient has been in retention for more than 15 months and the overcorrection that was achieved was lost, and ideal results have been maintained [Figure 11] and [Figure 12].
Figure 8: Posttreatment extra-oral photographs and intra-oral photographs

Click here to view
Figure 9: Posttreatment lateral cephalogram and posttreatment orthopantomogram

Click here to view
Figure 10: Superimposition of cephalometric tracing showing pretreatment with blue color and posttreatment with red color

Click here to view
Figure 11: Eighteen months posttreatment extra-oral photographs and intra-oral photographs

Click here to view
Figure 12: Eighteen months posttreatment lateral cephalogram and orthopantomogram

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

The focus of the orthodontic literature has been on the evaluation of the smile and the effect of incisor display during smiling.[12] The treatment of choice for gummy smile depends on a variety of factors such as smile line, upper lip length, incisor display, and vertical dimension.[13] Orthodontic tooth movement has always been associated with action and reaction mechanics. Anchorage control is vital, not just for achieving the desired tooth movement but also to produce stable results.[9] Recently, mini-implants have been used to correct gummy smiles or deep overbites through the intrusion of the upper incisors. Kim et al. applied a segmental intrusive force between the maxillary central incisors by using a mini-implant with segmented wires.[4] Lin et al. introduced a combined approach using skeletal anchorage to simultaneously control the vertical dimension and to resolve gummy smiles of the skeletal origin in adult long-faced patients.[14] Gummy smile with vertical maxillary excess and short upper lip often requires maxillary impaction and lip lengthening surgeries, respectively, to which patients are reluctant to undergo. The patient opted for minimal invasive procedures for her treatment, so gummy smile was addressed with intrusion of maxillary teeth only. Despite average upper lip length, it was short relative to commissure height, because of which the patient still had minimal lip incompetency at the end of the treatment. This could be corrected by surgical lip repositioning to improve facial profile.[15] Reoccurrence of malocclusion years after the end of treatment may lead to patients seeking retreatment. Therefore, the long-term stability seems to be more important than the final result itself.[16] The risk of overbite relapse is larger in extraction cases that that in nonextraction cases.[17] Baek et al. examined the long-term stability of anterior open-bite correction with intrusion of the maxillary posterior teeth. They showed that the maxillary first molars were intruded by 2.39 mm during treatment and erupted by 0.45 mm at the 3-year follow-up.[18] Lee and Park used miniscrews to intrude the maxillary molars and reported a 10.36% relapse rate for the intruded molars at 1-year posttreatment.[19] If proper retention method is applied during the 1st year of retention, we could prevent the relapse and improve the long-term stability of the treatment. There is evidence that indicates that a typical course of orthodontic treatment will lead to an average apical resorption of 1–2 mm for the upper incisors.[20],[21],[22]

   Conclusion Top

When nonsurgical correction of “gummy smile” is a prime treatment objective, then mini-implants present as an authentic treatment option. True intrusion of upper incisors can be achieved using miniscrew anchorage. This case report demonstrated that the mini-implant anchorage method was useful for achieving an excellent improvement of a dental deep bite and smile esthetics. An accurate diagnosis and treatment planning and anchorage preparation are required for the attainment of successful treatment outcome irrespective of the mechanics being executed.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Robbins JW. Differential diagnosis and treatment of excess gingival display. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1999;11:265-72.  Back to cited text no. 1
Fish LC, Wolford LM, Epker BN. Surgical-orthodontic correction of vertical maxillary excess. Am J Orthod 1978;73:241-57.  Back to cited text no. 2
Pinho T, Figueiredo A. Orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in a patient with Class II subdivision malocclusion: Occlusal plane alteration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:703-12.  Back to cited text no. 3
Kim TW, Kim H, Lee SJ. Correction of deep overbite and gummy smile by using a mini-implant with a segmented wire in a growing Class II Division 2 patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:676-85.  Back to cited text no. 4
Kaku M, Kojima S, Sumi H, Koseki H, Abedini S, Motokawa M, et al. Gummy smile and facial profile correction using miniscrew anchorage. Angle Orthod 2012;82:170-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
Bell WH, Jacobs JD, Legan HL. Treatment of Class II deep bite by orthodontic and surgical means. Am J Orthod 1984;85:1-20.  Back to cited text no. 6
Engel G, Cornforth G, Damerell JM, Gordon J, Levy P, McAlpine J, et al. Treatment of deep-bite cases. Am J Orthod 1980;77:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 7
McDowell EH, Baker IM. The skeletodental adaptations in deep bite correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:370-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1983;17:266-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
Upadhyay M, Nagaraj K, Yadav S, Saxena R. Mini-implants for en masse intrusion of maxillary anterior teeth in a severe Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Orthod 2008;35:79-89.  Back to cited text no. 10
Carillo R, Buschang PH, Opperman LA, Franco PF, Rossouw EP. Segmental intrusion with miniscrew implant anchorage: A radiographic evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007;132:576.e1-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
Janzen EK. A balanced smile A most important treatment objective. Am J Orthod 1977;72:359-72.  Back to cited text no. 12
Lindauer SJ, Lewis SM, Shroff B. Overbite correction and smile aesthetics. Semin Orthod 2005;11:62-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
Lin JC, Liou EJ, Bowman SJ. Simultaneous reduction in vertical dimension and gummy smile using miniscrew anchorage. J Clin Orthod 2010;44:157-70.  Back to cited text no. 14
Rosenblatt A, Simon Z. Lip repositioning for reduction of excessive gingival display: A clinical report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:433-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
Crum RE, Andreasen GF. The effect of gingival fiber surgery on the retention of rotated teeth. Am J Orthod 1974;65:626-37.  Back to cited text no. 16
Hernandez JL. Mandibular bicanine width relative to overbite. Am J Orthod 1969;56:455-67.  Back to cited text no. 17
Baek MS, Choi YJ, Yu HS, Lee KJ, Kwak J, Park YC. Longterm stability of anterior open-bite treatment by intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:396.e1-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
Lee HA, Park YC. Treatment and posttreatment changes following intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth with miniscrew implants for open bite correction. Korean J Orthod 2008;38:31-40.  Back to cited text no. 19
Ketcham AH. A progress report of an investigation of apical root resorption of vital permanent teeth. Int J Orthod Oral Surg Radiogr 1929;15:310-28.  Back to cited text no. 20
Phillips JR. Apical root resorption under orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 1955;25:1-22.  Back to cited text no. 21
Costopoulos G, Nanda R. An evaluation of root resorption incident to orthodontic intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:543-8.  Back to cited text no. 22


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10], [Figure 11], [Figure 12]

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Determining the desired position of mini-implants in an orthodontic treatment for correction of deep overbite
Abhishek M. Thote
Materials Today: Proceedings. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Orthodontic treatment of a convex profile patient with deep overbite, retroclined maxillary incisors, and spacing via fixed appliances and mini-implants
Xiaowei Li, Hao Yang, Ning Zhang, Dongyu Fang, Li Zhang, Yuxing Bai
AJO-DO Clinical Companion. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Treatment of dentoalveolar protrusion with customized lingual appliances and template-guided periodontal surgery
Xiaoting Wang, Zhengxian Zhu, Liting Jiang, Lingjun Yuan, Bing Fang, Mingyue Fan, Niansong Ye
AJO-DO Clinical Companion. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Diagnosis and Tr...
   Treatment Progress
   Treatment Results
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded215    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal