Anshul Mainkar1. 1. University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut. Electronic address: mainkar@uchc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the survival rate of teeth intentionally replanted with a modern technique and to compare their cost-effectiveness with that of single-tooth implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched for articles that met inclusion criteria published between January 1966 and February 2017. Overall survival rate of intentional replantation was determined through a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Cost of different procedures was determined from the 2016 American Dental Association Dental Fees Survey. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for different treatment modalities. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis resulted in a survival rate of 89.1% (95% confidence interval, 83.8%-94.4%). Compared with a single-tooth implant, intentional replantation was more cost-effective even when custom post/core and crown are also needed. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis revealed a high survival rate for intentional replantation. Although the survival rate of implants is higher, intentional replantation is a more cost-effective treatment modality. Intentional replantation should be a treatment option discussed with patients, especially because an implant can still be placed if intentional replantation is unsuccessful.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the survival rate of teeth intentionally replanted with a modern technique and to compare their cost-effectiveness with that of single-tooth implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched for articles that met inclusion criteria published between January 1966 and February 2017. Overall survival rate of intentional replantation was determined through a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Cost of different procedures was determined from the 2016 American Dental Association Dental Fees Survey. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for different treatment modalities. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis resulted in a survival rate of 89.1% (95% confidence interval, 83.8%-94.4%). Compared with a single-tooth implant, intentional replantation was more cost-effective even when custom post/core and crown are also needed. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis revealed a high survival rate for intentional replantation. Although the survival rate of implants is higher, intentional replantation is a more cost-effective treatment modality. Intentional replantation should be a treatment option discussed with patients, especially because an implant can still be placed if intentional replantation is unsuccessful.
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