The numbers behind hyperdontia are striking. Supernumerary teeth occur in an estimated 0.3 to 3.5 percent of the population, with a pronounced male predominance on the order of five males for every female. Morphologically, mesiodens come in three flavors: conical, or peg-shaped, which is the most common; tuberculate, with barrel-shaped crowns and multiple tubercles; and supplemental, which duplicates the appearance of a normal adjacent tooth. Why they form at all remains an open question. The leading hypotheses include hyperactivity of the dental lamina, the embryonic band of tissue that seeds tooth development; dichotomy, or splitting, of the tooth bud; and genetic predisposition. Mesiodens can also appear as a feature of syndromes such as cleidocranial dysostosis and Gardner’s syndrome, though many occur in otherwise healthy children, as in all three patients described in the new series.

What makes an impacted mesiodens clinically dangerous is not its presence but its position. Because it occupies space in the premaxillary region, it can delay or deflect the eruption of the permanent central incisors, prolong the retention of primary teeth, create a midline diastema, cause malocclusion, and trigger root resorption of neighboring teeth. Cyst formation, occlusal disturbance, and aesthetic concerns round out the list of potential complications. One cited study reported that certain positions of an impacted tooth may raise the risk of root resorption by as much as 50 percent, and delayed eruption of permanent incisors has been documented in up to 60 percent of affected patients. In rare instances, mesiodens have even been reported to migrate toward the nasal cavity, producing nasal obstruction, epistaxis, infection, or oronasal fistula. These are the stakes that make early detection and intervention more than a cosmetic matter.

The first case in the series illustrates the erupted form of the anomaly. A seven-year-old child arrived with an extra tooth visible in the anterior maxilla, positioned palatally near the incisive papilla and irritating the tongue. The tooth was conical, with incomplete root formation, and the child’s primary maxillary central incisors were still retained. A panoramic radiograph then revealed something the clinical examination could not: a second, impacted mesiodens hiding in the premaxillary bone. Cone-beam computed tomography, acquired on a NewTom 5G XL system with a 5 by 5 centimeter field of view and a fine 0.15-millimeter voxel size, confirmed that the second tooth was inverted, sat palatal to the right central incisor, and lay in close proximity to the incisive canal and the palatal cortical plate. Critically, the scan showed no root resorption, no cystic change, and no cortical bone involvement, information that allowed the surgical team to proceed with confidence.

Both teeth were removed under local anesthesia in a single session: the erupted conical tooth extracted first, followed by elevation of a palatal flap to access and remove the impacted, inverted one. Healing was uneventful, but the follow-up story proved instructive. At six months, the maxillary left central incisor had erupted, yet it arrived rotated and in a partial anterior crossbite, evidence that the extra teeth had subtly altered its eruption pathway. The clinicians initiated tongue-blade therapy, a simple interceptive orthodontic technique, to guide the tooth into position. By twelve months, the rotation and crossbite had fully resolved, the contralateral central incisor had erupted in an appropriate position, and the smile looked, in the published photographs, entirely conventional. The case demonstrates that removing an obstruction often permits spontaneous correction, but that some eruption disturbances still need a gentle mechanical nudge.

The second case shows how a mesiodens can cause trouble without ever blocking a tooth. A seven-year-old boy presented with mild spacing between his already-erupted permanent central incisors, a classic midline diastema. CBCT imaging, this time on a NewTom QR-DVT 9000 with a 10 by 10 centimeter field of view and a 0.3-millimeter voxel size, revealed an impacted, inverted conical mesiodens lodged palatally between the central incisors, adjacent to the palatal cortical plate and the incisive canal, but without pathology or interference with the adjacent teeth. Surgeons removed it through a palatal approach under local anesthesia. One year later, the diastema had measurably narrowed and both central incisors continued to erupt favorably. The authors anticipate further closure as the lateral incisors and canines come in, a reminder that the developing dentition possesses considerable self-correcting capacity once the mechanical obstacle is gone.

The third case is where the technology earns its keep. A nine-year-old boy presented with a maxillary right central incisor that had failed to erupt despite adequate space, and a panoramic radiograph showed an impacted central incisor with what appeared to be a single supernumerary tooth in the region. CBCT, acquired on a Genoray Papaya 3D system and reconstructed with TRIANA software, told a different story: there were two impacted mesiodens, both with irregular, two-cusped crown morphology, both vertically oriented, and both in intimate contact with critical structures. The left one, inclined palatally, sat with its cusp tip at the level of the cementoenamel junction of the left central incisor, its crown touching the coronal third of the root without resorption or fusion. The right one lay just below the palatal cortical plate, its crown in contact with the cingulum of the unerupted incisor. Both touched the incisive canal, yet its bony cortication remained intact. Only the three-dimensional dataset could have mapped this anatomy before a scalpel was lifted.

Both supernumerary teeth were surgically removed under local anesthesia, and at nine months the boy’s central incisors had erupted and aligned normally, with no complications. The authors highlight this case as the clearest demonstration of CBCT’s added value: the panoramic radiograph identified one mesiodens, while the tomographic scan revealed a second that would otherwise have been left behind, potentially compromising the outcome. Conventional radiographs remain useful for initial detection, but their two-dimensional projection superimposes anatomical structures and cannot reliably resolve morphology, orientation, or proximity to the incisive canal and cortical plates. CBCT delivers precise three-dimensional localization, clarifies surgical complexity, and, as the series argues, minimizes the risk of iatrogenic damage to adjacent permanent teeth during removal.

Management decisions are not always surgical. Depending on patient age, tooth position, and associated complications, clinicians may opt for periodic observation instead of extraction. Early intervention is generally recommended, however, when eruption disturbances, symptoms, or foreseeable risks are present, and in this series all three children met that threshold, whether for functional, developmental, or preventive reasons. The series also notes the demographic pattern: all three patients were male, consistent with the reported two-to-one male predominance in non-syndromic cases, and two of the three had double mesiodens, a finding the authors describe as considerably less frequent than a single extra tooth in otherwise healthy individuals.

The authors are candid about the limits of their work. A three-case series with relatively short follow-up cannot establish generalizable treatment protocols, and they call for prospective controlled studies with longer observation periods to confirm the findings. Still, the clinical message is clear and actionable. Mesiodens can silently derail the eruption of the permanent incisors, and the consequences, from midline gaps to crossbites to root resorption, are far easier to prevent than to reverse. For parents and clinicians alike, the takeaway is that an unexplained delay in a front tooth’s arrival, a persistent gap between the front teeth, or a retained baby incisor deserves prompt radiographic investigation, and when the answer matters, three-dimensional imaging can mean the difference between finding one extra tooth and finding two.

Subject of Research: Clinical variability, CBCT-based evaluation, and surgical management of mesiodens in pediatric patients

Article Title: Mesiodens: Clinical Variability, CBCT Evaluation, and Surgical Management, A Three‐Case Series

Article References: Nasr, N., Eshghi, A., Golabbakhsh, A., & SadighBatha, S. (2026). Mesiodens: Clinical Variability, CBCT Evaluation, and Surgical Management, A Three‐Case Series. Clinical Case Reports, 14(10), Article e73693. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.73693

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.73693

Keywords: mesiodens, supernumerary teeth, hyperdontia, CBCT, pediatric dentistry, impacted teeth, midline diastema, oral surgery, dental eruption, incisive canal, case series, cone-beam computed tomography

Exostoses are benign, exophytic bony outgrowths composed predominantly of cortical bone, the dense outer shell of the skeleton, though they sometimes contain cancellous bone, the spongy tissue found inside. They arise from the cortical surface of the jaws, are typically covered by normal-looking mucosa, and present as hard, painless masses on palpation. These lesions may be solitary or multiple, and their morphology can range from nodular to pedunculated, meaning attached by a stalk. Most commonly, they appear bilaterally on the buccal aspect of the maxillary alveolar ridge—the cheek side of the upper jaw’s tooth-bearing bone—while involvement of the mandible, the lower jaw, is comparatively rare. That rarity is precisely what made this young patient’s presentation noteworthy to the surgical team.

The precise cause of exostoses remains uncertain, but researchers have proposed several contributing factors. Genetic predisposition is thought to play a role, alongside environmental influences, masticatory hyperfunction—essentially, excessive chewing forces—and occlusal stress from the way the teeth meet. From a molecular perspective, bone remodeling–related genes such as RUNX2, a master regulator of osteoblastic differentiation and bone formation, have been suggested as potential contributors to abnormal bony growth patterns. Clinically, these lesions are often differentiated by location and morphology. Torus palatinus occurs along the midline of the hard palate, while torus mandibularis appears on the lingual, or tongue-facing, surface of the lower jaw, typically in the premolar to molar region. Histopathologically, however, exostoses and tori are indistinguishable: both consist of mature cortical and trabecular bone.

The epidemiology of these growths is striking. Studies report variable prevalence across populations, with torus palatinus occurring in up to 66 percent of individuals and torus mandibularis in up to 63.4 percent, while buccal exostoses have a lower prevalence of approximately 26.9 percent. Exostoses are usually asymptomatic and are most often discovered incidentally during routine dental examinations. They tend to occur more frequently in older individuals, particularly males, which makes an 18-year-old female with a solitary anterior mandibular lesion an atypical demographic on two counts. Recent studies indicate that buccal exostoses are less frequently reported than tori and predominantly occur in the posterior regions of the jaws. Anterior mandibular involvement is rare and mainly documented as isolated case reports, and the true incidence may be underestimated due to underreporting and population variability.

In this case, the patient presented to a maxillofacial surgeon with a swelling in the anterior region of her mandible that had been present for several months and had become a cosmetic concern, although it had not grown recently. Intraoral examination revealed a solitary, round, bony-hard prominence in the anterior buccal region. The overlying mucosa appeared normal, and the lesion was non-tender and immobile. There were no signs of facial asymmetry or functional impairment in speaking, chewing, or biting. The adjacent teeth were vital, with no mobility or sensitivity, and the patient had no history of parafunctional habits, trauma, or temporomandibular joint disorders. Her medical history was unremarkable, and notably, she reported no family history of exostoses—neither parent presented with similar bony protuberances—suggesting the absence of a hereditary predisposition in this instance.

Imaging played the decisive diagnostic role. The team performed a CBCT scan using a NewTom Giano HR device with a voxel size of 0.2 millimeters, a resolution fine enough to capture submillimeter anatomical detail. Multiplanar reconstructions in the axial and sagittal planes, along with three-dimensional renderings, demonstrated a well-defined, localized bony mass arising from the buccal cortex of the anterior mandible between the left central and lateral incisors. Critically, there was no evidence of invasion into adjacent structures, no root resorption, and no associated pathological changes. The differential diagnosis included buccal exostosis, osteoma, and peripheral ossifying fibroma. Correlating the imaging findings with the clinical presentation, the team established a provisional diagnosis of mandibular buccal exostosis and planned an excisional biopsy for definitive histopathological confirmation.

The choice of CBCT over conventional panoramic radiography was well justified by the physics of each modality. Panoramic radiography, the traditional first-line imaging tool for jaw lesions, is limited by magnification and distortion, with dimensional errors reported in the range of 15 to 25 percent for three-dimensional bony lesions. CBCT, by contrast, provides submillimeter accuracy of approximately 0.2 to 0.4 millimeters and eliminates the superimposition of overlapping structures, offering clearer visualization of cortical boundaries and adjacent anatomy. On CBCT, exostoses appear as well-defined cortical outgrowths with uniform density and direct continuity with the adjacent cortex, lacking internal heterogeneity, soft-tissue involvement, or expansile behavior. These quantitative advantages make CBCT considerably more reliable for assessing small anterior mandibular outgrowths that may be underestimated on panoramic images.

Distinguishing benign bone lesions from more aggressive pathologies is critical for appropriate management, and the imaging signatures differ in telling ways. Osteomas typically show higher radiodensity, a mixed cortical-cancellous pattern, and a more compact trabecular architecture; they are uncommon in the anterior mandible and occur more frequently in the paranasal sinuses. Peripheral ossifying fibroma, although primarily a soft-tissue lesion, may present with irregular internal calcifications and heterogeneous radiopacity—features absent in exostoses. Malignant tumors such as osteosarcoma and chondrosarcoma, meanwhile, often exhibit rapid growth, cortical destruction, and ill-defined margins. In this case, the lesion’s homogeneous cortical density, smooth margins, and direct cortical continuity were consistent with exostosis rather than osteoma or peripheral ossifying fibroma, guiding the team toward conservative surgical excision.

The surgery itself was performed under local anesthesia. The team raised a full-thickness triangular mucoperiosteal flap to expose the lesion, then excised the bony mass using a fissure bur and an osteotome. The surgical site was smoothed and contoured with a round carbide bur to restore continuity with the surrounding cortical bone. The excised specimen was submitted for anatomopathological examination, which confirmed the diagnosis of a benign exostosis composed of mature cortical and trabecular bone. Postoperative care included analgesics, antibiotics, and chlorhexidine mouthwash. Healing was uneventful, and follow-up visits at two weeks, three months, six months, and one year demonstrated satisfactory soft-tissue healing, preservation of the normal buccal contour, and no palpable bony irregularity at the surgical site.

The outcome carried meaningful psychological weight for the patient. Her chief concern had been cosmetic, and she reported significant improvement in self-confidence related to her facial appearance and speech after removal of the lesion. At the one-year follow-up, she reported no pain, discomfort, sensory disturbance, or functional limitation during speech, mastication, or oral hygiene procedures. The esthetic result was satisfactory, and no clinical evidence of recurrence was observed throughout the follow-up period. Because no signs or symptoms suggested complications or regrowth, the authors did not consider additional radiographic follow-up clinically necessary. The case aligns with standard management principles: exostoses are typically managed conservatively, with surgery indicated only when a lesion interferes with prosthodontic appliance placement, causes chronic mucosal ulceration, or produces esthetic or psychological concerns.

Comparisons with previously reported cases underscore just how unusual this presentation was. One earlier report documented a solitary exostosis in the right mandibular canine region that caused gingival recession around a single tooth—a contrast with the present case, where the adjacent teeth were entirely unaffected. Another described a young female with bilateral localized exostoses of the maxilla, differing in both anatomical location and lesion distribution. A third reported multiple exostoses in the anterior mandible of a 38-year-old woman, spanning the canine-to-canine region; although the anatomical site was similar, the multiplicity of lesions distinguished that case from this solitary example. In all reported cases, surgical excision was undertaken, and histopathological evaluation proved essential to confirm the benign nature of the lesions and rule out other pathologies.

The authors are candid about the limitations of their report, noting its single-center nature and inherently small sample size. The findings are descriptive and should not be interpreted as generalizable evidence; rather, the clinical observations are intended to contribute to the existing literature on rare mandibular buccal exostosis cases. Even so, the report delivers a clear message for clinicians and curious readers alike: unusual maxillofacial bone lesions demand a combination of thorough clinical assessment and appropriate imaging tools. CBCT, while not the primary diagnostic modality for such lesions, provided valuable complementary imaging that aided surgical planning and helped confirm the benign nature of the mass. For an 18-year-old worried about a lump on her jawline, that combination of careful diagnosis and precise surgery restored both her bone contour and her confidence—with no sign of the growth returning a year later.

Subject of Research: Diagnosis and surgical management of a rare anterior mandibular exostosis using cone-beam computed tomography

Article Title: Management of Anterior Mandibular Exostosis With Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography: A Rare Case Report

Article References: Abbasi, S., & Mohebiniya, M. (2026). Management of Anterior Mandibular Exostosis With Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography: A Rare Case Report. Clinical Case Reports, 14(10), Article e73565. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.73565

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.73565

Keywords: exostosis, mandible, cone-beam computed tomography, oral surgery, benign bone lesion, torus, osteoma, differential diagnosis, maxillofacial surgery, case report, dental imaging, bone remodeling

Tooth fusion is defined as the union of the enamel or dentin, or both, of two or more separate tooth germs during development. It is an uncommon finding even in baby teeth, with reported incidence rates ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 percent in the primary dentition and dropping dramatically to between 0.01 and 0.2 percent in the permanent dentition. Supernumerary teeth, additional teeth beyond the normal series, are somewhat more frequent, occurring in roughly 0.3 to 0.8 percent of primary dentitions and 1.5 to 3.5 percent of permanent ones, and they favor the anterior maxillary region more than any other site in the mouth. But when these two anomalies occur together, and specifically when a permanent incisor fuses with a supernumerary tooth, the situation becomes exceptionally rare, documented largely through isolated case reports and small case series.

The patient was referred by her community orthodontist in April 2025 for removal of two supernumerary teeth associated with the palatal aspect of both maxillary central incisors, along with two retained primary canines, to clear the way for fixed orthodontic treatment. Her medical history was unremarkable, there was no history of dental trauma, and no family history of fusion. By the time she was assessed, one primary canine had exfoliated naturally, but on the right side the clinical picture was more complicated: the supernumerary tooth there was partially erupted and lying palatal to the permanent central incisor. Vitality testing of the incisors was positive, and there was no tenderness to percussion, but clinical examination alone could not reveal the full story.

That story emerged from cone-beam computed tomography, the low-radiation three-dimensional imaging technique that has become indispensable in modern dentistry when two-dimensional radiographs fall short. The CBCT scan suggested fusion between the maxillary right central incisor and the adjacent supernumerary tooth, prompting a formal report from specialist dental and maxillofacial radiologists at Leeds Dental Institute. Their assessment confirmed continuity of dental tissue between the roots of the central incisor and the supernumerary in the coronal third of the roots, consistent with fusion. The supernumerary’s root was also described as sinuous in its apical third. On the left side, a second conical supernumerary sat palatal to the other central incisor with no direct contact, though without bony separation from the incisive foramen.

Orthodontic assessment revealed a class II division 2 malocclusion on a class I skeletal base, a shifted upper dental centerline, and a partially erupted maxillary left permanent canine. The treatment team identified clear reasons to remove the supernumeraries: they mechanically obstructed planned tooth movement and carried risks of resorption, dentigerous cyst development, and damage to adjacent teeth. Critically, the fused supernumerary would compromise movement of the upper right central incisor and increase the risk of caries and infection, since the fusion created a subgingival area protected from manual cleaning. Two options were presented to the patient and her family: monitoring the teeth in situ with awareness of future pathology risks, or proceeding with fixed appliance placement followed by surgical separation of the fusion.

The team chose the latter, and the planning that followed illustrates the depth of contingency thinking required for such cases. Because the surgery risked removing palatal bone support, there was a real chance of losing the central incisor during the operation or later through downstream pathology. A removable prosthesis was fabricated before surgery to replace the incisor should it be lost, and longer-term contingencies, from transitional adhesive bridgework to eventual implant placement once growth ceased, were mapped out. The patient’s high lip line, showing 2 millimeters of gingiva when smiling, added aesthetic urgency to these discussions, since prosthetic replacement near the smile line is unforgiving. Her adolescent age further complicated matters, as implants are typically deferred until jaw growth is complete.

The orthodontic preparation was itself a strategic maneuver. A fixed upper appliance was placed with a 0.013 nickel-titanium wire, later advanced to a 0.018 stainless steel round wire. The deliberate choice of a round rather than rectangular archwire avoided root torque on the vulnerable incisor, reducing the risk of iatrogenic damage during surgery. The appliance also served as a splint: with the wire in place, the maxillary right central incisor was mechanically stabilized intra-operatively and during post-operative healing, essentially turning the rest of the dental arch into a physiological support structure for the tooth at risk.

Surgery took place under general anesthetic in the oral surgery department. After reflecting a mucoperiosteal flap, the surgeons clinically confirmed the fusion. Using an osteotome with digital support of the upper right central incisor, they separated the supernumerary from the incisor and delivered it intact, leaving the permanent tooth firmly in place. The second supernumerary and the retained primary canine were removed in the same session. Intra-operative photographs documented the procedure, and follow-up examinations two months later showed the patient healing well, with the incisor retaining vitality and no radiographic signs of pathology.

The case underscores a broader lesson about diagnostic imaging. Guidelines support CBCT when two-dimensional imaging fails to provide sufficient diagnostic information, and here the scan was fundamental in confirming what was an incidental finding, a fusion neither clinically apparent nor expected. Without it, the surgical team would have approached what looked like routine supernumerary extraction with inadequate preparation, and the intra-operative findings matched the imaging precisely. The information gleaned shaped surgical planning, risk assessment, and the informed-consent conversation with the family, illustrating how modern imaging directly translates into safer care.

The literature contains successful examples of sectioning fused teeth using rotary handpieces and even lasers, but separation always carries risks including dentin hypersensitivity, pulpitis, resorption, and the potential need for root canal treatment or extraction. The Belfast team’s success hinged on weighing surgical and post-operative complications against the risks of leaving the anomaly in place, sequencing orthodontics before surgery to provide splinting where bone support was compromised, and committing to long-term follow-up of pulpal vitality, periodontal health, and radiographic appearance. For a rare anomaly within a rare anomaly, the case offers a replicable framework: recognize early with appropriate imaging, plan across specialties, prepare contingencies, and let orthodontics do more than straighten teeth.

Subject of Research: Multidisciplinary surgical and orthodontic management of a fusion between a permanent maxillary central incisor and a partially erupted supernumerary tooth

Article Title: The Multidisciplinary Management of A Fusion Involving a Permanent Maxillary Central Incisor and a Partially Erupted Supernumerary Tooth: A Case Report

Article References: Irvine, A., Juman, S., Marley, J., Fee, P., McNeill, A., & Johnston, C. (2026). The Multidisciplinary Management of A Fusion Involving a Permanent Maxillary Central Incisor and a Partially Erupted Supernumerary Tooth: A Case Report. Clinical Case Reports, 14(9), Article e73560. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.73560

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.73560

Keywords: tooth fusion, supernumerary teeth, CBCT, orthodontics, oral surgery, dental anomaly, case report, maxillary incisor, multidisciplinary care, pediatric dentistry, 3D imaging, dental pulp vitality