ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Survival and success rates of autotransplanted

premolars: A prospective study of the protocol
for developing teeth
Pawe1 Plakwicz,a Andrzej Wojtowicz,b and Ewa Monika Czochrowskac
Warsaw, Poland

Introduction: The aim of this prospective clinical trial was to examine the predictability of the protocol for pre-
molar transplantation when applied by an inexperienced surgeon. Additional objectives were to examine the
hard and soft tissues and to compare the findings with control premolars and also to record the patients' opinions
of the treatment provided. Methods: The sample comprised 23 consecutively transplanted developing premo-
lars in 19 patients. Their mean age at surgery was 12 years 8 months (range, 9 years 10 months-17 years). The
mean observation time was 35 months (range, 6-78 months). Plaque accumulation, pocket depth, gingival
recession, mobility, and pulp sensitivity were recorded for the transplanted and the control teeth.
Standardized radiographs were used to examine hard tissues and crown-to-root ratios. Questionnaires were
used to register each patient’s opinion about the treatment and its outcome. Results: The survival rate was
100%, and the success rate was 91.3%. No significant differences were recorded between transplanted and
control teeth. The patients' perceptions of the surgical management and the treatment outcome were favorable.
Conclusions: The protocol for autotransplantation of developing premolars in growing patients was success-
fully adopted, regardless of lack of previous experience with this type of treatment. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2013;144:229-37)

P
rotocols for tooth transplantation described in the
literature differ regarding the type of donor teeth
and their stage of root development,1-5 the
surgical technique,3,6-8 and the storage of the donor
teeth before transplantation.6,9 The high diversity of
the examined samples results in differing survival and
success rates of treatment outcomes. Tooth
transplantation might be perceived as an unpredictable
alternative by surgeons unfamiliar with the procedure.
It is therefore important for the orthodontist to
reassure the surgeons that a predictable and simple
transplantation protocol exists; with their help, this
exciting approach can be used for many orthodontic
patients with missing teeth.
From Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
a
Assistant lecturer, Department of Periodontology.
b
Professor and chair, Department of Oral Surgery.
c
Adjunct professor, Department of Orthodontics.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of
Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.
Reprint requests to: Ewa Monika Czochrowska, Department of Orthodontics,
Medical University of Warsaw, ul. Nowogrodzka 59, 02-005 Warsaw, Poland;
e-mail, ewa.czochrowska@magres.pl.
Submitted, November 2012; revised and accepted, March 2013.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2013 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.019
In the1960s, Slagsvold and Bjercke10-12 established
a protocol for autotransplanting teeth at the University
of Oslo in Norway. It includes indications for
transplantation, the surgical procedure, and follow-up
guidelines described in these articles. The predictability
of this method was further supported in a long-term
follow-up of their material, which demonstrated that
the transplanted teeth had a survival rate of 90% and
generally did not differ from normal teeth 2 to 4 decades
later.13
The general orthodontic indication for selecting
a donor tooth is a need or a possibility of a tooth extrac-
tion. Surgical indications require sufficient space at the
donor and recipient sites and favorable root morphol-
ogy, enabling atraumatic removal of the graft without
damage to the root surface. Developing, unerupted, or
erupting premolars with half to three quarters of the
final root length are preferable donors because they
have a high potential for pulp revascularization, normal
healing of the periodontal tissues, and further root
growth. Premolars are often extracted for orthodontic
purposes. Their morphology and position in the dental
arch facilitate atraumatic removal when selected as
donor teeth.6,14 Zachrisson et al15 described the main or-
thodontic indications for transplantation of premolars:
229
230
(1) agenesis of the mandibular second premolars in low-
angle face types (normal or weak profiles) (Fig 1), (2)
traumatic loss of maxillary incisors (Fig 2), and (3) un-
evenly distributed multiple agenesis (Fig 2). The trans-
planted teeth should be observed for a minimum of 2
years to monitor eruption, pulp healing, and root devel-
opment, which are required for a successful outcome.
When a premolar is transplanted to replace a missing
maxillary incisor, its crown needs to be reshaped with
composite resin or porcelain veneer to match the natural
contralateral incisor (Fig 2, D). The clinical and radio-
logic statuses of premolars transplanted to the maxillary
incisor region were similar to those of the neighboring
incisors in a follow-up study.16 Premolars replacing inci-
sors have the potential for satisfactory esthetics from
both the patient’s and a professional perspective.17
This protocol was adopted in Poland, a country with-
out previous experience in tooth transplantation. The
aim of this prospective clinical trial was to examine its
predictability when used by an inexperienced surgeon.
The study was performed by assessing the survival and
success rates of a consecutive sample of autotrans-
planted developing premolars. Additional objectives
were to examine the hard and soft tissues, to compare
the findings with control premolars, and also to record
the patients’ opinions of the treatment provided.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The sample included 23 consecutively autotrans-
planted second premolars with developing roots. The
mean stage of root development was 4 (two thirds of
the final root length), ranging from 2 (a quarter of the
final root length) to 6 (full root length, wide open
apex).1,18 The mean observation time after surgery was
35 months (range, 6-78 months). The teeth were
transplanted in 19 patients (10 girls, 9 boys); the mean
age at the surgery was 12 years 8 months (range, 9
years 10 months-17 years). Seventeen maxillary and 6
mandibular second premolars served as donor teeth to
replace 2 maxillary and 13 congenitally missing mandib-
ular second premolars and 4 maxillary central incisors
lost from trauma. One maxillary and 3 mandibular
ectopic second premolars were transplanted to a correct
position (transalveolar transplantation) because ortho-
dontic traction was considered impossible (Fig 3). All
premolars were transplanted by the same oral surgeon
(P.P.) and had 2 months of clinical follow-up of tooth
transplantation at the Department of the Oral Surgery
and Oral Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2000
before this study.
Twelve second premolars, contralateral to the donor
sites, served as the controls for intraindividual
August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska
comparisons in the subsample having control teeth (12
pairs). No control premolars were available for 11 trans-
plants (subsample without available controls) because 4
patients (8 transplants) had agenesis of both mandibular
second premolars; consequently, both maxillary second
premolars were transplanted (Fig 1, A-E), and 3 patients
(3 transplants) had agenesis or previous extraction of the
contralateral premolar (Fig 2, B and F).
All transplantations were performed under local an-
esthesia (articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000).
The first stage of the surgery aimed to gain access to
a developing donor tooth because all teeth, except for
2 premolars in 1 patient, had not erupted (Figs 1, A, 2,
B, and 3, A). When a deciduous molar was present at
the donor or recipient site, it was extracted at the begin-
ning of the surgery. The first incision was made along
the gingival margin followed by a vertical release of
a flap on the buccal side at the donor site. The labial
cortical plate covering the donor tooth was carefully de-
marcated with a bur under copious saline-solution irri-
gation. A thin layer of trabecular bone adjacent to the
graft was gently removed with an excavator to prevent
any damage to the root surface. The donor tooth was as-
sessed for whether it could be removed atraumatically
with intact dental follicle, cementum, and Hertwig’s ep-
ithelial root sheath. If this assessment was positive, then
the recipient site (second stage of the surgery) was pre-
pared using a conical bur under copious saline-solution
irrigation until the size of the new socket could easily ac-
commodate the donor tooth with surplus space of 1 mm
around the root. When a recipient site was prepared in
the anterior maxilla, the new socket was sometimes par-
tially open on the labial side, as the result of bone loss
after trauma and surgical dehiscence created by the
preparation. If a further adjustment in size or shape of
the recipient bed was necessary, the donor tooth was
kept in the saline solution to protect it from drying for
a maximum of 15 minutes.
In the third stage of the surgery, the donor tooth was
transferred and positioned in the recipient site, ensuring
no occlusal contacts during the initial healing. The
donor was stabilized with sutures that crossed over the
premolar’s cusps.19 When the transplantation was per-
formed in the anterior maxilla, the bone dehiscences
on the labial aspect were filled with remnants of the
donor’s follicle.
The operating time was approximately 60 to 90 min-
utes. In all patients, healing was uneventful, with no
signs of edema or inflammation.
The patients were recalled 2 weeks after the surgery
for suture removal, at 1 month and every 3 months dur-
ing the first year, and then once a year. Intraoral radio-
graphs, mobility tests, and electric pulp testing were
Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska 231

Fig 1. A, Congenitally missing mandibular second premolars (x's) in a 12-year-old girl; developing
maxillary second premolars (circles) were selected as donors to substitute missing teeth. B, Panoramic
radiograph with transplanted maxillary second premolars (arrows) 5 years after surgery; C, orthodontic
treatment for closure of spaces and D, correction of a deepbite; E, no pathology was found 5 years after
surgery; obliteration of the pulp was a typical finding in transplanted teeth; F, no major profile changes
occurred.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2
232 Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska

Fig 2. A, Loss of maxillary incisor in a 10-year-old girl; B, lack of space and agenesis (x's) of maxillary
and mandibular second premolars; the circled tooth is the donor tooth before transplantation; arrow
shows the transplantation site; C, an unerupted mandibular premolar was transplanted to replace
the missing incisor; D, 5 years 3 months after surgery, the transplant has been reshaped to incisor
morphology by composite buildup; E, the occlusion was normal without orthodontic treatment;
F, panoramic radiograph 5 years 3 months after surgery; arrow shows the transplanted tooth.

performed to detect possible complications (resorption,
arrested root development, or pulp necrosis). At the final
clinical examination, all transplanted and control pre-
molars had erupted and were in contact with the oppos-
ing teeth. All transplants and controls had completed
their root formations.
Four transplanted premolars were subsequently
bonded with orthodontic brackets. Three of the 4 pre-
molars transplanted to the maxillary anterior segment
were reshaped with composite 12 to 24 months after
the surgery.
The percentage of transplanted premolars present at
the examination relative to the number of all transplanted
teeth was called the survival rate. The success rate was cal-
culated as the percentage of transplanted premolars ful-
filling established success criteria in relation to the
number of transplanted teeth.13 The criteria included no
progressive root resorption, normal hard and soft peri-
odontal tissues, and a crown-to-root ratio less than 1.
The clinical examination was performed by a trained
and calibrated examiner (P.P.) using an electronic probe
system (Florida Probe, Gainesville, Fla).20 The examina-
tion included plaque accumulation (0, not present; 1,
present; recordings at 3 locations on the buccal side
and 1 on the lingual side of a tooth), gingival recession
height, and pocket depths. For each examined tooth,
recession height and pocket depths were recorded at 6
locations (medial, central, and distal) on the lingual
and buccal sides. For 2 transplanted and 2 control pre-
molars, no pocket depth measurements were available.
Tooth mobility was tested using the M€ uhlemann
index.21 The percussion test, radiographs, and a distinct

August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska 233

Fig 3. A, Radiograph of the ectopic mandibular second premolar embedded below the medial root of
the first molar in a 15-year-old girl; B, 1 week after surgical repositioning of the mandibular right second
premolar (transalveolar transplantation), the former crypt of the premolar appears as a bony defect; the
transplant was secured with a steel ligature bonded to its crown tip and the neighboring teeth for 10
days; C, 2 years after transplantation, the bony defect has healed; D, 27 months after transplantation,
there was no hard-tissue pathology or pulp obliteration, and the root of the transplant (left) was slightly
shorter root than the control premolar (right); E, normal clinical appearance of the transplant.

infraocclusion were used to detect signs of ankylosis (re-

Table I. Measurement errors estimated with Dahlberg's
placement resorption). Electric pulp testing was per-
formula22 and Houston's coefficients of reliability23
formed to determine pulp sensitivity when the electric
pulp testing probe was brought into the contact with Houston’s coefficient
Measurement Dahlberg’s calculation of reliability (%)
the buccal surfaces of the tooth.
Crown length (T) 0.18 94
Standardized, intraoral film radiographs (long cone-
Root length (T) 0.19 96
beam parallel technique) were used to examine the hard Crown length (C) 0.20 94
tissues, the outline of the alveolar socket (presence of lam- Root length (C) 0.29 92
ina dura), and the pulp obliteration (Figs 1, E, and 3, D). T, Treatment; C, control.
The radiographs were taken using a positioner (x-ray
holders), which was placed on a film, 30.5 3 40.5 mm,
parallel to the long axis of the tooth and perpendicular Statistical analysis
to the x-ray central cone. The intraoral radiographs were For the intraindividual comparisons (transplants vs
assessed by 2 examiners (P.P. and E.M.C.), and the results controls) in 12 pairs, the exact McNemar test was applied
were registered when both examiners agreed. Crown and to assess differences between the transplanted and con-
root lengths were measured using digital calipers for cal- trol premolars for plaque, gingival recession height, and
culation of the crown-to-root ratios. The measurements mobility.24 Linear mixed-effects models were used to
were repeated twice 8 weeks later, and the measurement test the differences between the transplants and the
errors were estimated using Dahlberg’s formula22 and controls for mean pocket depth.25 The models were ad-
Houston’s coefficients of reliability23 (Table I). justed for correlations between 6 measurements of
All patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire that in- pocket depth and recession height for each tooth (3
cluded 7 questions13 (Fig 4). The questionnaire addressed measurements on the buccal side and 3 on the lingual
how the surgical procedure was perceived (5 questions) side of the transplanted and control teeth) using
and asked the patient’s opinion about the current status treatment*side-specific random intercepts, and they
of the transplanted tooth (2 questions). The answers contained the main effect of the side and the effect of
were recorded using a 57-mm visual analog scale. transplantation nested in the side. The estimates of the

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2
234 Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska

Fig 4. Questionnaire used to evaluate the patients' opinions about the surgery and the outcome with
means (boxes) and ranges (arrows) of their responses in red.

probability of sensing the impulse during electrical pulp
testing were computed with the Kaplan-Meier
method.26 The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was
used to test differences between the transplanted and
control premolars for crown-to-root ratio.27
The subsample without control teeth (n 5 11) was
compared with the subsample having control teeth
(n 5 12) to test for any differences between them.
The Fisher exact test was used to compare the pres-
ence of plaque, recession height, and mobility.24 Differ-
ences in the pocket depths between the subsamples were
investigated using linear mixed-effects models.25 The
models were adjusted for correlation between the 6 mea-
surements of pocket depth for each transplanted tooth
and control premolar. The exact Wilcoxon rank sum
test was applied to compare the distribution of the

August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska 235

Table II. Summary statistics for mean pocket depths (PD) in both subsamples
PD of transplants with control (mm) PD of transplants without control (mm)

Transplant Control Transplant

Overall Buccal Lingual Overall Buccal Lingual Overall Buccal Lingual

n 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
Mean 2.30 2.47 2.13 2.52 2.30 2.73 2.27 2.36 2.18
SD 0.65 0.80 0.57 0.62 0.51 0.84 0.33 0.59 0.34
Minimum 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.33 1.67
Quartile 1 1.83 1.67 1.67 2.00 1.67 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.00
Median 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.58 2.50 3.00 2.33 2.33 2.00
Quartile 3 2.83 3.33 2.33 3.00 2.67 3.33 2.50 2.67 2.33
Maximum 3.33 3.67 3.33 3.33 3.00 4.00 2.83 3.33 3.00

Table III. Crown-to-root ratios

Subjects without
Subjects with control tooth control tooth

Transplant Control Transplant Transplant

ratio ratio control ratio
n 12 12 12 11
Mean 0.764 0.658 0.106 0.682
SD 0.199 0.149 0.159 0.062
Minimum 0.541 0.501 0.018 0.621
Quartile 1 0.602 0.546 0.009 0.629
Median 0.694 0.587 0.057 0.667
Quartile 3 0.940 0.776 0.116 0.718
Maximum 1.158 0.977 0.567 0.831

Fig 5. Probability of sensing the impulse (vertical axis) by
all transplanted and control premolars for a value smaller
than or equal to that on the horizontal axis.
crown-to-root ratios between the subsamples.27 All
computations were performed using software (version
9.1.3; SAS, Cary, NC). All tests were 2-sided at the 0.05
significance level.
RESULTS
The survival rate was 100%, and the success rate was
91.3% because 2 transplants did not fulfill the success
criteria. Ankylosis was detected in 1 transplant. An unfa-
vorable crown-to-root ratio (1.13) was recorded in 1
transplant, which had been surgically repositioned
from its initial ectopic position (transalveolar transplan-
tation). However, the crown-to-root ratio at surgery was
considerably higher (2.6), indicating that substantial
root growth had occurred after transplantation.
All transplanted premolars were present within normal
alveolus processes at the examinations. The differences
between transplanted and control teeth were not statisti-
cally significant for the presence of plaque (P 5 0.12) and
gingival recession (P 5 1). Normal mobility was recorded
in the subsample with controls. The differences between
the subsamples (with and without controls) were not sta-
tistically significant for plaque (P 5 0.66) and gingival re-
cession (P 5 0.31). One transplant (in the subsample
without controls) had become ankylosed.
Table II shows summary statistics for the mean
pocket depths in both subsamples. In the subsample
with controls, the overall mean pocket depth of the
transplant was not statistically significantly different
from that of the control (P 5 0.26). The difference in
the mean pocket depth scores between the transplants
in the subsamples was 0.03 mm and not statistically
significant (P 5 0.89).
Figure 5 describes the results of the probability of
sensing the electrical pulp testing impulse (the vertical
axis) by all transplanted and control premolars for values
given on the horizontal axis. The electrical pulp testing
values for the curve of the controls were generally
slightly larger than those for the transplants, implying
that for the control teeth, the impulse was sensed at
a lower voltage (more sensitive). The difference between
the curves, however, was not statistically significant (P 5
0.31 for the log rank test).20
No hard-tissue pathology was detected on the in-
traoral radiographs. Various degrees of pulp obliteration
(Figs 1, E, and 3, D) were seen in all transplanted

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2
236
premolars except for one, which still responded normally
to the electrical pulp testing. No endodontic treatment
was performed or required in any transplanted tooth.
A normal lamina dura, which confirmed the transforma-
tion of an artificial socket into a new root socket, was
found in all but the 1 transplant that was ankylosed.
Crown-to-root ratios for both subsamples are shown
in Table III. In the subsample with controls, the ratio was
on average higher by about 0.106 (P 5 0.005). The
crown-to-root ratio for the subsample without control
teeth was on average slightly smaller than that of the
other subsample (mean ratio, 0.682 vs 0.764 [P 5 0.74]).
Figure 4 shows the means and ranges of the patients'
responses to the questionnaire. Most of the means were
located between 0 and 13 mm of the visual analog scale
(almost 80% reported positive responses), and 6 means
reached nearly 90%.
DISCUSSION
The same high survival and success rates reported in
studies from the University of Oslo were obtained when
developing teeth, especially premolars, were used as do-
nors.12,13,16 Our results of the first 23 consecutively
autotransplanted developing premolars also confirm
the high predictability of this protocol. Tooth
transplantation was not an established treatment
modality in Poland, and it is not included in the
undergraduate and postgraduate training programs in
dental schools.28 Therefore, the oral surgeon who per-
formed all surgeries in this study had no clinical experi-
ence in tooth transplantation and only a short
observation period in Norway before starting this study
in Poland. Schwartz at al29 reported that higher survival
and success rates of tooth transplantation were obtained
when more experienced surgeons were operating. How-
ever, we did not observe the effect of a surgical learning
curve that could cause a higher failure rate for the first
transplanted teeth.30 Two teeth that were regarded as
unsuccessful (ankylosis, short root) were recorded as
teeth numbers 6 and 8. These failures were associated
with their less favorable stages of root development at
the surgery (full length) and their positions in the dental
arch (severely ectopic) rather than with the surgeon’s
experience.31,32 The main problem regarding tooth
transplantation is that few patients are suitable for this
type of surgery compared with, for example,
implantation because the orthodontic and surgical
indications for selection of appropriate candidates are
limited; this affects a surgeon’s experience. However,
the surgical protocol adopted from the University of
Oslo, tested in our prospective study of the 23 first
consecutively transplanted developing premolars, has
August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska
good potential for a successful outcome, even for
a surgeon without previous clinical experience. One
author, an orthodontist (E.M.C.), had previous
experience with tooth transplantation in terms of
patient selection, monitoring after surgery, and
adjunctive orthodontic treatment; this could have had
a positive influence on the results.
Donors with short roots are easier to remove and ac-
commodate in a new socket; this is especially important
for ectopically positioned teeth (Fig 3, A). Unerupted
teeth have a wide dental follicle that protects the root
surface from injury during their removal, thus reducing
the risk of ankylosis after transplantation.14 These favor-
able factors are not present in fully erupted teeth with
closed root apices. Watanabe et al4 concluded that
“when possible, clinicians should consider autotrans-
plantation before root formation is complete.” The risk
associated with transplanting teeth with developing
roots is restricted root growth that might affect the suc-
cess rate. The comparison of transplanted and control
teeth in the subsample with control teeth indicates
that the crown-to-root ratio is on average smaller by
11% than that of the control teeth, as was reported pre-
viously.31,32 This difference might not be clinically
significant because it represents roots about 1 to 1.25
mm shorter for transplanted teeth.
Generally, the patients experienced low to moderate
discomfort during surgery, and they were satisfied with
the outcome. The lowest mean score was recorded for
the question related to the decision about the transplan-
tation (question 2), indicating that it was a surprisingly
easy decision to make for most patients. The team ap-
proach included initial consultation with an orthodon-
tist and an oral surgeon, in which the orthodontic and
surgical indications were discussed based on regular or-
thodontic documentation. If the response was positive,
the patient and the parents who were interested in this
treatment option were referred for a surgical consulta-
tion. Good communication between an orthodontist
and a surgeon before surgery and during follow-up
might have contributed to the positive decisions about
surgery by young patients and their parents, and to
the successful outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
A protocol for autotransplantation of developing
premolars was successfully adopted, despite the lack of
previous experience with this type of treatment. The sur-
vival and success rates of a consecutive sample of trans-
plants were similar to those obtained at the University in
Oslo. The hard and soft tissues of the transplanted pre-
molars generally did not differ significantly from the
Plakwicz, Wojtowicz, and Czochrowska
control teeth. The patients responded favorably regard-
ing their perception of the surgery and the outcome.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Tomasz Burzykowski from the Hasselt Uni-
versity, Diepenbeek, Belgium, for his invaluable help
with the statistical analysis.
REFERENCES
1. Kristerson L. Autotransplantation of human premolars. A clinical and
radiographic study of 100 teeth. Int J Oral Surg 1985;14:200-13.
2. Jonsson T, Sigurdsson TJ. Autotransplantation of premolars to
premolar sites. A long-term follow-up study of 40 consecutive pa-
tients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:668-75.
3. Bauss O, Kiliaridis S. Evaluation of tooth position, occlusion and
interproximal contacts after transplantation of immature third
molars. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:121-8.
4. Watanabe Y, Mohri T, Takeyama M, Yamaki M, Okiji T, Saito C,
et al. Long-term observation of autotransplanted teeth with com-
plete root formation in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dento-
facial Orthop 2010;138:720-6.
5. Patel S, Fanshawe T, Bister D, Cobourne MT. Survival and success
of maxillary canine autotransplantation: a retrospective investiga-
tion. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:298-304.
6. Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Ahlquist R, Bayer T, Schwartz O.
A long-term study of 370 autotransplanted premolars. Part I. Sur-
gical procedures and standardised techniques for monitoring heal-
ing. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:3-13.
7. Nethander G, Andersson JE, Hirsch JM. Autogenous free tooth
transplantation in man by a 2-stage operation technique. A longi-
tudinal intra-individual radiographic assessment. Int J Oral Maxil-
lofac Surg 1988;17:330-6.
8. Laureys WG, Dermaut LR, Cuvelier CA, De Pauw GA. Does removal of
the original pulp tissue before autotransplantation influence ingrowth
of new tissue in the pulp chamber? Dent Traumatol 2010;26:393-7.
9. Temmerman L, De Pauw GA, Beele H, Dermaut LR. Tooth trans-
plantation and cryopreservation: state of the art. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:691-5.
10. Slagsvold O, Bjercke B. Autotransplantation of premolars with
partly formed roots. A radiographic study of root growth. Am J
Orthod 1974;66:355-66.
11. Slagsvold O, Bjercke B. Indications for autotransplantation in cases
of missing premolars. Am J Orthod 1978;74:241-57.
12. Slagsvold O, Bjercke B. Applicability of autotransplantation in
cases of missing upper anterior teeth. Am J Orthod 1978;74:
410-21.
13. Czochrowska EM, Stenvik A, Bjercke B, Zachrisson BU. Outcome of
tooth transplantation: survival and success rates 17-41 years post-
treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:110-9.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
237
14. Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Schwartz O. A long-term
study of 370 autotransplanted premolars. Part III. Periodontal
healing subsequent to transplantation. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:
25-37.
15. Zachrisson BU, Stenvik A, Haanaes HR. Management of missing
maxillary anterior teeth with emphasis on autotransplantation.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:284-8.
16. Czochrowska EM, Stenvik A, Album B, Zachrisson BU. Autotrans-
plantation of premolars to replace maxillary incisors: a comparison
with natural incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:
592-600.
17. Czochrowska EM, Stenvik A, Zachrisson BU. The aesthetic out-
come of autotransplanted premolars replacing maxillary incisors.
Dent Traumatol 2002;18:237-45.
18. Moorrees CF, Fanning EA, Hunt EE Jr. Age variation of formation
stages for ten permanent teeth. J Dent Res 1963;42:1490-502.
19. Bauss O, Zonios I, Engelke W. Effect of additional surgical proce-
dures on root development of transplanted immature third molars.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:730-5.
20. Gibbs CH, Hirschfeld JW, Lee JG, Low SB, Magnusson I,
Thousand RR, et al. Description and clinical evaluation of a new
computerized periodontal probe—the Florida probe. J Clin Perio-
dontol 1988;15:137-44.
21. M€ uhlemann HR. Periodontometry. A method for measuring tooth
mobility. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1951;4:1220-33.
22. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological stu-
dents. London, United Kingdom: George Allen and Unwin;
1940. p. 122-32.
23. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements.
Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-90.
24. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990.
25. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G. Linear mixed models for longitudinal
data analysis. New York: Springer; 2000.
26. Collett D. Modeling survival data in medical research. Boca Raton,
Fla: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003.
27. Lehmann EL. Nonparametrics: statistical methods based on ranks.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.
28. Komorowska A, Wroblewski M. Results of premolar grafting into
the extraction wounds of the first permanent molars. Czas Stoma-
tol 1981;34:413-21.
29. Schwartz O, Bergmann P, Klausen B. Autotransplantation of hu-
man teeth. A life-table analysis of prognostic factors. Int J Oral
Surg 1985;14:245-58.
30. Lambert PM, Morris HF, Ochi S. Positive effect of surgical experi-
ence with implants on second-stage implant survival. J Oral Max-
illofacial Surg 1997;5:12-8.
31. Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Bayer T. A long-term study
of 370 autotransplanted premolars. Part IV. Root develop-
ment subsequent to transplantation. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:
38-50.
32. Myrlund S, Stermer EM, Album B, Stenvik A. Root length in trans-
planted premolars. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:132-6.
August 2013  Vol 144  Issue 2