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

Elena Riad Deglow,María Bufalá Pérez,Francesc Abella Sans,Nayra Zurima Lazo Torres,Sofía Hernández Montero,David Gutiérrez Muñoz,Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho,Agustín Galparsoro Catalán

doi:10.3390/jcm11041012

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.

Highlights

Autotransplantation entails transplanting embedded, impacted or erupted teeth from one extraction site to a fresh extraction socket or surgically prepared socket [1]
Among the indications for tooth autotransplantation are impacted or ectopic teeth, premature and/or traumatic tooth loss, tooth loss resulting from tumours or for iatrogenic reasons, congenitally missing teeth in one arch together with arch length discrepancy, or clinical signs of tooth crowding in the opposing arch, replacement of hopeless teeth and/or developmental dental anomalies [3,6,7]
The present study reported that the coronal and angular deviations between the static navigation technique (SNT) and free-hand technique (FT) study groups did not show statistically significant differences; statistically significant differences were observed between the apical deviation of the SNT and FT study groups

Summary

Introduction

Autotransplantation entails transplanting embedded, impacted or erupted teeth from one extraction site to a fresh extraction socket or surgically prepared socket [1]. The immature tooth with an open apex is characterized by having an adequate blood supply and stem cells stimulating pulp revascularization post autotransplantation [12]. This revascularization promotes continuous root development and tooth vitality and, at the same time, induces normal alveolar bone growth, which is unfeasible in fixed prostheses. Autotransplantation has a high success rate in immature teeth and is the most conservative and physiologic tooth replacement option [13,14,15,16,17], especially in young patients [6,18]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion