Comparative analysis of third molar autotransplantation and immediate dental implantation

Relevance. Modern rehabilitation methods offer a variety of treatment options, one of which is immediate dental implantation. However, several factors may limit the applicability of this approach. An alternative rehabilitation method is the autotransplantation of third molars.

Objective. To perform a comparative analysis of third molar autotransplantation and immediate dental implantation based on objective and subjective parameters.

Materials and methods. The study was conducted at the Department of Oral Surgery, E.V. Borovsky Institute of Dentistry, Sechenov University. A total of 30 patients (15 males and 15 females) aged 18 to 52 years were enrolled. Depending on the treatment method, patients were divided into two groups: in Group 1, patients underwent tooth extraction followed by third molar autotransplantation; in Group 2, patients underwent tooth extraction with immediate dental implantation. Postoperative evaluation included tooth mobility after autotransplantation and mobility of the contralateral tooth at 3 and 6 months; implant stability intraoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively; subjective data based on quality of life assessment (OHIP-14), pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and the severity of soft tissue swelling.

Results. Six months after autotransplantation, the mobility of the transplanted teeth (1.7±3.7 units) did not differ significantly from that of the contralateral teeth (-0.2±2.9 units) (p=0.058). Implants demonstrated statistically significant differences at each evaluation stage (p<0.001). In the early postoperative period, pain was significantly higher in the autotransplantation group (p<0.001), but no significant differences were observed during subsequent follow-up. Quality of life scores and swelling did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusion. Six months after the procedure, tooth mobility following autotransplantation was comparable to that of natural teeth. Postoperative discomfort and quality of life outcomes were similar in both groups.

1. Thanissorn C, Guo J, Jing Ying Chan D, Koyi B, Kujan O, Khzam N, Miranda LA. Success rates and complications associated with single immediate implants: A systematic review. Dent J. 2022;10(2):31.

2. Pommer B, Ulm C, Lorenzoni M, Palmer R, Watzek G, Zechner W. Prevalence, location and morphology of maxillary sinus septa: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(8):769–73.

3. Fong CC. of the Third. :917–26.

4. ANDREASEN JO, HJØRTING-HANSEN E, JØLST O. A clinical and radiographic study of 76 autotransplanted third molars. Eur J Oral Sci. 1970;78(1–4):512–23.

5. Kristerson L. Autotransplantation of human premolars: a clinical and radiographic study of 100 teeth. Int J Oral Surg. 1985;14(2):200–13.

6. Verweij JP, Jongkees FA, Anssari Moin D, Wismeijer D, van Merkesteyn JPR. Autotransplantation of teeth using computer-aided rapid prototyping of a three-dimensional replica of the donor tooth: a systematic literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2017;46(11):1466–74. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.04.008

7. Kim E, Jung JY, Cha IH, Kum KY, Lee SJ. Evaluation of the prognosis and causes of failure in 182 cases of autogenous tooth transplantation. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2005;100(1):112–9.

8. Ashurko I, Shirnaliev U, Kirill V, Orazova L. Delayed autotransplantation as a method of single defect treatment with sinus perforation. Case report. J Clin Exp Dent. 2023;15(2):e160–4.

9. Badalyan VA, Zedgenidze AM. Success factors in tooth autotransplantation. 2020;99(4):81–5.

10. Tsukiboshi M, Yamauchi N, Tsukiboshi Y. Long-term outcomes of autotransplantation of teeth: A case series. Dent Traumatol. 2019;35(6):358–67.

11. Zhou Y, Li Y, Mao L, Peng H. Periodontal healing by periodontal ligament cell sheets in a teeth replantation model. Arch Oral Biol [Internet]. 2012;57(2):169–76. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.08.008.

12. Heimes D, Becker P, Pabst A, Smeets R, Kraus A, Hartmann A, Sagheb K, Kämmerer PW. How does dental implant macrogeometry affect primary implant stability? A narrative review. Int J Implant Dent [Internet]. 2023;9(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00485-z.

13. Liu Z, Liu X, Ramakrishna S. Surface engineering of biomaterials in orthopedic and dental implants: Strategies to improve osteointegration, bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities. Biotechnol J. 2021;16(7):2000116.

14. Sashi V, Leoney A, Louis LRP. Proprioception and osseoperception in prosthodontics–A review. J Acad Dent Educ. 2023;9(1):24–7.

15. De Francesco M, Ferrara E, Inchingolo F, Dalmaschio G, Pispero A, Inchingolo AM, Dipalma G, Testori T, Tartaglia GM, Rapone B. Soft-Tissue Management Dental Implants with Digitally Customized Healing Abutments: A Pilot Study. Prosthesis. 2024;6(3):596–618