Cemental Tear in an Autotransplanted Tooth That Had Been Functioning for 15 Years

Abstract

Introduction: Cemental tears have been described as specific types of root surface fractures that are seen infrequently but can cause rapid collapse of the periodontal tissue. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, cases of cemental tears in autotransplanted teeth and their recovery by autotransplantation have not been reported previously. This case report presents the clinical and histopathologic features of a rare case of a cemental tear that occurred on an autotransplanted tooth. This meant a total long‐term treatment course of 20 years involving two separate treatment procedures. Case Presentation: In 1995, the mandibular left second molar of a 40‐year‐old woman was extracted, and autogenous tooth transplantation was performed simultaneously using a third molar from the same side. Good clinical and radiologic progress was observed for >10 years after tooth transplantation. After discovery of a vertical bone defect in the distal area in 2006, conservative periodontal treatment was conducted on the diseased periodontal pocket over the course of several years. In 2010, autogenous tooth transplantation and a subsequent histopathologic examination of the extracted tooth were performed. After recovery treatment, a 5‐year follow‐up examination provided good results. Conclusions: This case report concerns the suspected contributing factors of cemental tears and the recovery treatment. When cemental tears are suspected after radiographic and other clinical examinations, interventional surgical treatment should be performed immediately. When autogenous tooth transplantation is performed, following careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of appropriate treatment and proper selection, continuous monitoring should be a prerequisite because of the possible occurrence of cemental tear.

Autotransplantation of the Third Molar: A Therapeutic Alternative to the Rehabilitation of a Missing Tooth: A Scoping Review

“…The 31 included studies for the qualitative analysis were: Primary outcome: Schliephake and NeuKam 1990 [ 19 ], Moorrees et al 1963 [ 20 ], Atala-Acevedo et al 2017 [ 21 ], Lundberg and Isaksson 1996 [ 22 ], Lucas-Taulé et al 2021 [ 23 ], Rey Lescure et al 2021 [ 24 ], Tang et al 2017 [ 25 ], and Jang et al 2013 [ 9 ]. Secondary outcome: Lucas-Taulé et al 2021 [ 23 ], Nagata et al 2016 [ 26 ], Kristerson et al 1991 [ 27 ], Bauss et al 2004 [ 28 ], Sugai et al 2010 [ 3 ], Jang et al 2016 [ 29 ], Aoyama et al 2012 [ 30 ], Koszowski et al 2013 [ 31 ], He et al 2018 [ 32 ], and Shahbazian et al 2010 [ 33 ]. Tertiary outcome: Arbel et al 2019 [ 34 ], Mena-Álvarez et al 2020 [ 35 ], Bauss et al 2004 [ 36 ], Devi et al 2014 [ 37 ], and Alkofahi et al 2020 [ 38 ].…”

“…Secondary outcome: Lucas-Taulé et al 2021 [ 23 ], Nagata et al 2016 [ 26 ], Kristerson et al 1991 [ 27 ], Bauss et al 2004 [ 28 ], Sugai et al 2010 [ 3 ], Jang et al 2016 [ 29 ], Aoyama et al 2012 [ 30 ], Koszowski et al 2013 [ 31 ], He et al 2018 [ 32 ], and Shahbazian et al 2010 [ 33 ].…”

“…In addition, the presence of cement tears also represents an unfavorable prognostic factor in the survival of dental elements subjected to autotransplantation due to the onset of resorption phenomena in this regard. Nagata et al 2016 described a successful case of a molar with a cement tear surviving for 15 years [ 26 ].…”

Tooth autotransplantation: review of the relevant procedural aspects for the clinical success

“…Such factors as periodontal pocket depth of more than 4 mm at the site of donor tooth, age over 40 years, and previous endodontic treatment may be categorized as unfavorable regarding tooth autotransplantation prognosis. It is also recommended not to rotate the donor tooth during its transplantation and avoid damage of the cementum, as this can provoke resorption [57][58][59].…”