This study involves a group of 168 teeth in 126 patients treated with crown lengthening and tooth reconstruction (experimental group), and a group of 75 teeth from 62 patients that were judged irrational to treat, extracted, and replaced (control group). In the control group, 13 teeth in 12 patients were not replaced; 37 were replaced with an implant-supported crown, 14 with a tooth-supported partial denture, 2 with a Maryland partial denture; and 9 patients requested a removable prosthesis. In the experimental group, 44 teeth in 37 patients received a conservative restoration (24 direct and 20 indirect), while 124 teeth in 94 patients received a full crown. All 168 teeth were surgically treated with minimally invasive crown lengthening. Endodontic treatment and orthodontic extrusion were applied when necessary. Treatment resulted in healthy periodontal and dental/implant conditions at the 1-year follow-up in both groups. Function and esthetics were described from satisfactory to extremely satisfactory by patients of both groups, with the exception of three patients in the control group who received a mobile prosthesis restoration and reported some difficulties in chewing. When comparing treatment cost and duration of the reconstructed teeth (experimental group) to the treatment cost and duration of extracted and replaced teeth (control group), the difference is significantly in favor of the preservation of natural teeth, both monetarily and in terms treatment time. Saving a tooth with a compromised crown is more favorable for the patient than extraction and replacement. This conservative approach is advisable to clinicians whenever the clinical conditions enable treatment.
