Mahmoud Torabinejad1, Nathan A Dinsbach2, Michael Turman3, Robert Handysides4, Khaled Bahjri5, Shane N White6. 1. Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California. Electronic address: mtorabinejad@llu.edu. 2. Private Practice Limited to Endodontics, Riverton, Utah. 3. Private Practice Limited to Endodontics, Bismarck, North Dakota. 4. Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California. 5. School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California. 6. UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although nonsurgical initial root canal treatment and retreatment have high success rates, periapical disease can remain. The survival rates of 2 surgical procedures, intentionally replanted (IR) teeth and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs), have yet to be compared. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the literature and quantify the survival of IR teeth and compare it with that of ISCs. METHODS: Systematic searches were enriched by citation mining. Weighted survival means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model and compared. RESULTS: The quality of the IR and ISC articles was only moderate. Data for ISCs were much more plentiful than for IR teeth. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted mean survival of 88% (95% CI, 81%-94%) for IR teeth. Root resorption was reported with a mean prevalence of 11%. The weighted mean survival of ISCs was 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%). The mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than that of IR teeth (P < .001). A recent study on IR teeth indicated that orthodontic extrusion before intentional replantation improved survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis found that the mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than IR teeth. However, treatment decisions must be based on a wide variety of treatment and patient-specific parameters. Intentional replantation may have a role when ISC is not practicable. Studies using contemporary treatment and analytic methods should be used to identify and measure intentional replant prognostic and treatment variables.
INTRODUCTION: Although nonsurgical initial root canal treatment and retreatment have high success rates, periapical disease can remain. The survival rates of 2 surgical procedures, intentionally replanted (IR) teeth and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs), have yet to be compared. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the literature and quantify the survival of IR teeth and compare it with that of ISCs. METHODS: Systematic searches were enriched by citation mining. Weighted survival means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model and compared. RESULTS: The quality of the IR and ISC articles was only moderate. Data for ISCs were much more plentiful than for IR teeth. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted mean survival of 88% (95% CI, 81%-94%) for IR teeth. Root resorption was reported with a mean prevalence of 11%. The weighted mean survival of ISCs was 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%). The mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than that of IR teeth (P < .001). A recent study on IR teeth indicated that orthodontic extrusion before intentional replantation improved survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis found that the mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than IR teeth. However, treatment decisions must be based on a wide variety of treatment and patient-specific parameters. Intentional replantation may have a role when ISC is not practicable. Studies using contemporary treatment and analytic methods should be used to identify and measure intentional replant prognostic and treatment variables.
Authors: Alexandra Vinagre; Catarina Castanheira; Ana Messias; Paulo J Palma; João C Ramos Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: João Miguel Santos; Joana A Marques; Margarida Esteves; Vítor Sousa; Paulo J Palma; Sérgio Matos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.964