Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May 8;15(9):3379.
doi: 10.3390/ma15093379.

Does Root Development Status Affect the Outcome of Tooth Autotransplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Does Root Development Status Affect the Outcome of Tooth Autotransplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ernest Lucas-Taulé et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: Tooth autotransplantation is defined as the surgical repositioning of an autogenous tooth in another surgical site within the same individual. Aim: The aim of this research was to analyze the outcome of tooth transplantation using immature donor teeth compared with closed apex teeth and to compare differences between donor tooth positions on the arch. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed in different databases, including the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Central (CENTRAL), and the digital library of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC University) from 1978 to March 2021. Studies were selected when they fulfilled the following criteria: only human prospective clinical studies, minimum sample size of 10 patients, minimum follow-up of 1 year, studies reporting or with at least deducible data on survival rates, immediate tooth autotransplantation with completed or incomplete root formation, and publications in the English language. A meta-analysis of random effects was developed to estimate the global effect measure of the survival rate, success rate, and root resorption involving the total sample, as well as open- and closed-apex groups. Results: Twenty-four articles were eligible for analysis. The Cohen's kappa corresponding to this review was 0.87, and the risk assessment was considered low-moderate for the included studies. Overall survival and success rates were 95.9% and 89.4%, respectively, with a mean follow-up of 4 years and an overall mean age of 25.2 ± 12.3 years. Closed apex teeth showed a survival rate of 3.9% lower than that of open apex teeth. Higher complication rates were found for both inflammatory external root resorption and replacement root resorption in the closed-apex group, without reaching statistical significance. Conclusions: Tooth autotransplantation is a viable treatment alternative, regardless of the apical condition, with high survival and success rates after a mean follow-up of 4 years. Open-apex donor teeth could be considered the gold-standard option, showing lower complication rates when compared to closed-apex donor teeth. Future randomized controlled clinical studies are needed to examine the long-term prognosis of this technique.

Keywords: closed apex; complete root formation; incomplete root formation; meta-analysis; open apex; systematic review; tooth autotransplantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart of the screening process in the different databases.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots for the overall survival rate (mean [95% CI]).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots for the open-apex (A) and closed-apex (B) overall survival rate (mean [95% CI]). (A) Open-apex survival rate. (B) Closed-apex survival rate.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots for the open-apex (A) and closed-apex (B) overall survival rate (mean [95% CI]). (A) Open-apex survival rate. (B) Closed-apex survival rate.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots for the overall success rate (mean [95% CI]).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tsukiboshi M. Autotransplantation of teeth: Requirements for predictable success. Dent. Traumatol. 2002;18:157–180. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-9657.2002.00118.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Howe M., Keys W., Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2019;84:9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Renvert S., Persson G., Pirih F., Camargo P. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J. Periodontol. 2018;89:S304–S312. doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0588. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Derks J., Tomasi C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015;42:S158–S171. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12334. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwarz F., Sahm N., Schwarz K., Becker J. Impact of defect configuration on the clinical outcome following surgical regenerative therapy of peri-implantitis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2010;37:449–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01540.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources