L' Orthodontie francaise · 2025
[Tooth autotransplantation (part 2): A case series].
СтатьяКлинический случайАннотация на английскомНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Legendre Quentin, Favre de Thierrens Carle, Gebeile-Chauty Sarah
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Tooth autotransplantation is an ancient yet little-known technique, despite its high success rate. The aim of this article is to present a series of clinical cases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were treated by the same oral surgeon, either solo or with four-handed dentistry, in collaboration with various orthodontists or dental surgeons in private practice or in hospital settings. Only photographs of cases with more than one year of follow-up are presented.
RESULTS: The complete series included 12 cases, 7 of which have a follow-up period exceeding one year. The patients were aged between 13 and 34 years. Most of the teeth involved were immature (4 out of 7 cases before Nolla stage 10). The length of follow-up varied, with some cases monitored for up to 3 and a half years. The main indication was replacement of a decayed tooth with a third molar. Three cases involved different situations: impossibility to perform traction as a first-line treatment (due to a severely dystopic tooth) or as a second-line option (due to ankylosis and resorption). One tooth was lost due to excessive milling of the neo-alveolus and active retention. The fallback solution in this case was implant placement. One tooth remained in slight infraocclusion.
DISCUSSION: Although the routine preservation of third molars should not be standard practice, the wide range of indications (caries, teeth refractory to traction, etc.) calls for a careful assessment of the pros and cons of extracting third molars and consideration of their usefulness, for example for autotransplantation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were treated by the same oral surgeon, either solo or with four-handed dentistry, in collaboration with various orthodontists or dental surgeons in private practice or in hospital settings. Only photographs of cases with more than one year of follow-up are presented.
RESULTS: The complete series included 12 cases, 7 of which have a follow-up period exceeding one year. The patients were aged between 13 and 34 years. Most of the teeth involved were immature (4 out of 7 cases before Nolla stage 10). The length of follow-up varied, with some cases monitored for up to 3 and a half years. The main indication was replacement of a decayed tooth with a third molar. Three cases involved different situations: impossibility to perform traction as a first-line treatment (due to a severely dystopic tooth) or as a second-line option (due to ankylosis and resorption). One tooth was lost due to excessive milling of the neo-alveolus and active retention. The fallback solution in this case was implant placement. One tooth remained in slight infraocclusion.
DISCUSSION: Although the routine preservation of third molars should not be standard practice, the wide range of indications (caries, teeth refractory to traction, etc.) calls for a careful assessment of the pros and cons of extracting third molars and consideration of their usefulness, for example for autotransplantation.