Influence of Static Navigation Technique on the Accuracy of Autotransplanted Teeth in Surgically Created Sockets

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse and compare the position of single-rooted autotransplanted teeth using computer-aided SNT drilling and conventional freehand (FT) drilling, by comparing the planned and performed position at the coronal, apical and angular level. Materials and methods: Forty single-root upper teeth were selected and distributed into the following study groups: A. Autotransplanted tooth using the computer-aided static navigation technique (SNT) (n = 20) and B. Autotransplanted tooth using the conventional free-hand technique (FT) (n = 20). Afterwards, the teeth were embedded into two experimental models and 10 single-root upper teeth were randomly autotransplanted in each experimental model. The experimental models were submitted to a preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan and a digital impression by a 3D intraoral scan, in addition to a postoperative CBCT scan, after the autotransplantation. Datasets from postoperative CBCT scans of the two study groups were uploaded to the 3D implant planning software, aligned with the autotransplantation planning, and the coronal, apical and angular deviations were measured. The results were analysed using Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney non-parametric statistical analysis. Results: Coronal (p = 0.079) and angular (p = 0.208) statistical comparisons did not present statistically significant differences; however, statistically significant differences between the apical deviation of the SNT and FT study groups (p = 0.038) were also observed. Conclusions: The computer-aided static navigation technique does not provide higher accuracy in the positioning of single-root autotransplanted teeth compared to the conventional free-hand technique.

Clinical Assessment of Immediate Autotransplantation of Mandibular Third Molars: An In Vivo Study

“…Both present-p and absent-a notations were made. Success evaluation criteria are commonly utilized in published works [ 10 - 12 ]. At the conclusion of the observation period, the tooth transplant was considered successful if it met the following conditions: the transplanted tooth was functioning normally without excessive mobility, and physiologic mobility was allowed [ 10 - 12 ].…”

“…Success evaluation criteria are commonly utilized in published works [10][11][12]. At the conclusion of the observation period, the tooth transplant was considered successful if it met the following conditions: the transplanted tooth was functioning normally without excessive mobility, and physiologic mobility was allowed [10][11][12]. Radiographically, there is no root resorption and a normal PDL space and the lamina dura [13].…”

“…Tooth agenesis, especially of the premolars and lateral incisors, traumatic tooth loss, atopic eruption of canines, root resorption, extensive endodontic lesions, cervical root fractures, and localized juvenile periodontitis are some of the other disorders for which transplantation may be a possibility [10][11][12]. Regional odontodysplasia, tooth aplasia, and cleidocranial dysplasia, which are dental development abnormalities [13,14], and tooth agenesis [15] are a few examples of when transplants may be necessary.…”