Shakil Ahmed Nagori1, Ongkila Bhutia2, Ajoy Roychoudhury3, Ravinder Mohan Pandey4. 1. Junior Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 2. Additional Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Electronic address: dr_ongkila@rediffmail.com. 3. Professor and Head, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 4. Professor and Head, Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We present our experience of success with immediate third molar transplants in young individuals while secondarily assessing factors predicting failure. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 57 cases of third molar transplant with both open and closed apices were studied in individuals aged 15 to 25 years. Factors influencing prognosis were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The replaced teeth included 17 maxillary molars (29.8%) and 40 mandibular molars (70.2%). After a follow-up of 19.9 ± 2.8 months, 49 cases (86%) were successful; 7 (12.3%) cases failed owing to root resorption, and 1 (1.7%) failed owing to infection. Pulp revascularization was seen in all successful cases with open apices. Proximal grinding of donor tooth was significantly associated with failure (odds ratio, 12.5; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Autogenous third molar transplant is an excellent and viable treatment modality. By using proper case selection and minimizing damage to the donor tooth root, high success rates can be achieved.
OBJECTIVE: We present our experience of success with immediate third molar transplants in young individuals while secondarily assessing factors predicting failure. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 57 cases of third molar transplant with both open and closed apices were studied in individuals aged 15 to 25 years. Factors influencing prognosis were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The replaced teeth included 17 maxillary molars (29.8%) and 40 mandibular molars (70.2%). After a follow-up of 19.9 ± 2.8 months, 49 cases (86%) were successful; 7 (12.3%) cases failed owing to root resorption, and 1 (1.7%) failed owing to infection. Pulp revascularization was seen in all successful cases with open apices. Proximal grinding of donor tooth was significantly associated with failure (odds ratio, 12.5; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Autogenous third molar transplant is an excellent and viable treatment modality. By using proper case selection and minimizing damage to the donor tooth root, high success rates can be achieved.