Orthodontic extrusion vs. Surgical extrusion to rehabilitate severely damaged teeth: A literature review

Martina Cordaro, Edoardo Staderini, Ferruccio Torsello, Nicola Maria Grande, Matteo Turchi, Massimo Cordaro

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


The need to rehabilitate severely compromised teeth is frequent in daily clinical practice. Tooth extraction and replacement with dental implant represents a common treatment choice. However, the survival rate for implants is inferior to teeth, even if severely damaged but properly treated. In order to reestablish a physiological supracrestal tissue attachment of damaged teeth and to arrange an efficient ferrule effect, three options can be considered: crown lengthening, orthodontic extrusion and surgical extrusion. Crown lengthening is considered an invasive technique that causes the removal of part of the bony support, while both orthodontic and surgical extrusion can avoid this inconvenience and can be used successfully in the treatment of severely damaged teeth. The aim of the present narrative review is to compare advantages, disadvantages, time of therapy required, contraindications and complications of both techniques.

Original languageEnglish
Article number9530
JournalInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Issue number18
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2021


  • Crown–root fracture
  • Forced orthodontic eruption
  • Orthodontic extrusion
  • Orthodontics
  • Rapid orthodontic extrusion
  • Surgical extrusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pollution
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis


Dive into the research topics of 'Orthodontic extrusion vs. Surgical extrusion to rehabilitate severely damaged teeth: A literature review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this