VERIFIABLE CPD PAPER

Oral surgery CLINICAL

Autotransplantation of third molars: a literature review

and preliminary protocols
Lucia Armstrong,*1 Claire O’Reilly*2 and Bilal Ahmed3

Key points
Wisdom tooth autotransplantation offers a
cost-effective tooth replacement method when
compared to alternative techniques such as
osseointegrated implants.
Appropriate patient selection remains a key factor in There is no set or defined protocol in the literature
the success of autotransplanted teeth. relating to the autotransplantation technique or
review protocol.

Abstract
Tooth autotransplantation (the movement of a tooth from one site to another in the same person) is a technique with a
history dating back many centuries. However, the use of third molars as donor teeth is perhaps less well-recognised and less
documented. A review of the current literature was undertaken with particular attention to the use of the third molar as the
donor tooth. The selection process, surgical procedure and follow-up pathways were summarised in the review. Appropriate
patient selection was found to be a key factor in the success of the technique. Other prognostic factors were also discussed.
The findings from the available literature suggest that autotransplantation is a viable and cost-effective technique. However,
the literature relating to the use of third molars as donor teeth for autotransplantation is limited and there are currently
no evidence-based guidelines or protocols relating to the technique. This paper discusses the literature and protocols the
authors implement for autotransplantation of wisdom teeth.

Introduction was documented by Hunter in The Natural Clinical technique

Tooth autotransplantation can be defined
as the planned movement of a particular
tooth from one site to another within the
same patient. 1 The wider umbrella term
of tooth transplantation dates back to the
days of Ancient Egypt, where it has been
reported that slaves were forced to donate
their teeth to Pharaohs.2 Furthermore, and
perhaps closer to home, Scottish-born dentist
John Hunter in the late 1700s is reported to
have popularised the, now eyebrow-raising,
practice of transplanting teeth into the
mouths of the wealthy from poorer members
of society for the right price. This practice
1
DCT in Paediatric Dentistry, Birmingham Children’s Hospital;
2
ACF in Paediatric Dentistry, Birmingham Dental Hospital and
School of Dentistry; 3Specialist in Oral Surgery, Birmingham
Dental Hospital and School of Dentistry.
*Corresponding authors: Lucia Armstrong and Claire O’Reilly
Email: lucia.armstrong@nhs.net and claire.o’reilly1@nhs.net
Refereed Paper.
Accepted 16 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1264-9
History of Human Teeth and was exploited
by other dentists of the time.3 These accounts,
if accurate, would be examples of intra-
species homogenous tooth transplantation.
The method of autotransplantation was first
well-documented in 1956 by Hale et al.,
and much of the methodology remains
the same today. 4 The technique is more
commonly used in paediatric dentistry,
typically utilising partially formed open apex
premolars to replace poor prognosis or absent
anterior teeth.5
Molar tooth autotransplantation also dates
back over half a century, with specifically
third molar autotransplantation providing
an alternative option to replace a missing or
hopeless prognosis first or second molar,6
whether this is due to caries, periodontal
disease or otherwise. The classical indications
for autotransplantation include premature
or traumatic tooth loss, impacted, ectopic
or missing teeth, tumours, iatrogenic injury
and those with a poor prognosis;7 the latter
being, arguably, the most common case study
presented in the literature for third molars.
The clinical considerations for the technique of
third molar autotransplantation can be briefly
visited by describing a 35-year-old female who
attended Birmingham Dental Hospital. She
presented with a carious lower right second
molar (47) and a mesially impacted, partially
erupted, sound lower right third molar (48)
with complete root formation. The suitability
of both the extraction site and donor tooth
were assessed and determined as appropriate
(the factors to consider will be detailed later).
The patient was well-motivated, medically fit,
had excellent oral hygiene and an unrestored,
otherwise well-maintained, dentition.
The 47 was extracted before the 48. The 48 was
provisionally left in situ while the 47 donor socket
site was prepared. This involves the removal of
remaining inter-radicular bone and debris which
may hinder location of the transplant. The 48
was then autotransplanted to the donor socket
and the occlusion checked. Following surgery,
the 48 was splinted to the adjacent tooth and the
soft tissue sutured at the point of the interdental
papilla. The patient was followed up with a

BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 228 NO. 4 | February 28 2020 247

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to British Dental Association 2020
 CLINICAL
Table 1 These are guidelines the authors choose to implement on transplant cases
Factors to consider
Patient motivation
Patient factors: Consent
Medical history
Oral hygiene
Root configuration
Clinical factors: Inferior dental nerve
Surgical procedure
Splinting and follow-up
number of staged reviews. Subsequent root canal
treatment is often also performed and discussed
in more detail later (a series of clinical images
and radiographs outlining the process can be
found in Appendix 1.) Preliminary author-
proposed guidelines addressing some important
considerations that are locally implemented in
autotransplantation cases are summarised in
Table 1.
Published case reports
There are a number of case reports, series and
prospective studies described in the literature.
Mendes and Rocha (2004) describe two case
studies of the young adult (16 and 17 years
old), which not only differ from the case
study previously described in the age of the
patient, but therefore also in the stage of root
development. The third molars selected are
immature with only partial root development.
This allows for utilisation of the regenerative
potential of the pulp, both in revascularisation
and innervation. The process of extraction for
both the molar of poor prognosis and the
donor third molar was as atraumatic as possible
to preserve the adjacent bone and follicular
sac respectively. Care was also taken to avoid
releasing incisions at the recipient site to enable
the circular gingival fibres to maintain as much
integrity as practicable. Rather than splint the
tooth to the adjacent molar, the donor tooth
was positioned inferiorly and stabilised with
sutures which passed over the coronal aspect
to act as a stabilising anchor. This positioning
aimed to allow for continued root growth.7
Zakershahrak et al. (2017) present a case of
a similarly aged patient to that described here;
248
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to British Dental Association 2020
Oral surgery
Details
Patients motivated for surgical procedure and subsequent
root canal treatment.
All options discussed for replacing the second molar and
patient opts for transplantation
Patient not immune-compromised nor does medical
history contraindicate oral surgery.
Meticulous oral hygiene and sound gingival health.
Length and shape of roots of both teeth (extracted and
transplant tooth) appear similar such that a suitable fit in
transplant site can occur.
Away from second molar socket.
Keep transplant tooth out of the mouth for as short a time
as possible. Store in saline or milk when outside mouth.
Flowable composite and wire splint for up to four weeks
and root canal treatment to be initiated.
a female approaching her fourth decade with a
poor prognosis 47 replaced with an autogenous
third molar. This case differs, however, in that
the donor tooth is from the opposing arch
(18). Techniques used in this case include
disinfection of the oral environment with
0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, both pre-op
and post-op on prescription (0.12%) for
two weeks, and the use of silk sutures only to
splint. Elective endodontics was also initiated
five days later and completed over two visits.
In this case, the patient was regularly reviewed
at one day, one week, one month, six months
and three years. Encouragingly, three years
post-op, the patient had no symptoms, no
occlusal or periodontal concerns and normal
physiological mobility. Further positive signs
included resolution of the previous periapical
radiolucency and intact root form.6
Prognostic factors and success: a review
of the literature
Certain criteria have been noted as critical to
the success of autotransplantation, and patient
selection remains important. Appropriate
patient selection includes a motivated,
cooperative patient with good oral hygiene, in
good general heath without structural cardiac
anomalies, and with a willingness to attend
review appointments.7,8 Local factors of the
recipient and donor site should also be carefully
considered. The recipient site should be free
from acute infection and have substantial
bone support to facilitate the transplanted
tooth. With regards to the donor tooth, relative
contraindications include abnormal root
morphology which would warrant sectioning
or surgical removal of the donor tooth. Donor
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 228 NO. 4 | February 28 2020
teeth with two-thirds complete root formation
are the ideal candidates for transplantation due
to the potential for further root development
and retained vitality as previously alluded to;
however, teeth with fully formed roots are not
contraindicated to be candidates.8
Other prognostic factors reported in the
literature suggest the way in which the donor
tooth is extracted is important; ideally as
atraumatically as possible in order to avoid
unnecessary damage to the root. In addition
to this, a younger patient (15–19 years old)
will have immature third molars, which have
a thicker follicle or periodontal ligament (PDL)
to stand the damaging tests of extraction. The
tooth should be minimally handled with as
little extraoral dry time as possible, and the
alveolar bone width of the recipient site should
also be considered in relation to the donor
tooth width in order to ensure no undue stress
or resorption occurs. The transplant should be
adequately but flexibly secured and stabilised;
a variety of different splinting techniques
are reported on later (Table 1). This is most
commonly 7–10 days in duration.7
CBCT scanning can provide guidance to
assist in both treatment planning cases for
autotransplantation and during the surgical
procedure.
A recent study by M EzEldeen et al. (2019)
of 100 autotransplanted teeth revealed that
a CBCT-guided approach improved the
predictability of treatment compared to a
conventional approach.9
3D-printed analogues of the donor tooth
can be made, which in turn can minimise the
donor tooth’s extraoral time and frequency
of trial insertions into the recipient socket.10
Additionally, risk of damage to the PDL of the
donor tooth is reduced which may increase the
success rate of autotransplanted teeth.11
With reference to mandibular third molars,
CBCT could also be used as an adjunct to assess
the anatomical relationship of the wisdom
tooth to surrounding structures, such as the
inferior dental nerve, if sufficient information
is not provided by conventional radiography. It
can also be used to provide information on the
wisdom tooth’s socket size and morphology.
There are currently no defined criteria for
measuring success. Success can be viewed from
a patient’s or clinician’s perspective12 and success
rates in the literature vary, but generally high
success rates are cited. Andreason13 reported
approximately a 95% long-term survival
rate of premolar autotransplantations over a
13-year period, but the level of experience of
 Oral surgery CLINICAL

Table 2 A summary of the stabilisation techniques reported for autotransplanted third molars

Author(s) and Third molar stabilisation technique (splint Total number of Mean follow-up period Success/survival rate
year duration stated where reported) transplanted teeth (where reported) (where reported)
Compare different methods:
Rigid splinting – acid-etch composite/wire for
Bauss et al., 65 mandibular third Rigid splinting has a negative influence on
four weeks 3.9 years
200520 molars root length
Suture splint – 2/0 occlusally-crossed silk for
one week
Mendes and Infraoccluded with 3/0 occlusally-crossed silk
Rocha, 20047 suture passed through interdental papilla

Yan et al., Mesial and distal interrupted sutures ± additional 35 mandibular third
5.2 years 94% (no infection, ankylosis, loss of
201019 wire fixation as required for one week molars
transplant or root resorption)
Control: 93.1%
Non-absorbable surgical sutures over the occlusal 65 mandibular third Surgically created socket with guided bone
Yu et al., 2017 17
9.9 years
surface removed after 2–3 weeks molars regeneration (GBR): 95.2%
Surgically created socket with no GBR: 80%
Mesial and distal interdental sutures
81.4% survival
Mejàre et al., Ten cases fixed with a Luxatemp string (DM6, 50 mandibular third
Four years Seven teeth were extracted
200416 Hamburg, Germany) applied to the buccal surface molars
96% normal PA status
and adjacent tooth
Use of splitting osteotomy to help stabilise the
tooth in the alveolar region in cases with a
Akiyama et al., previous extraction. 25 mandibular third
199818 Used a selection of: silk sutures, adhesive resin, molars
temporary resin/wire splint, circumferential wiring
1–6 weeks
Zakershahrak One maxillary third
Silk sutures Three years
et al., 20176 molar

Nimčenko Crossed suture and resin/wire splint to adjacent 15 mandibular third

100% ‘but still need to be followed for
et al., 201421 teeth in slight infra-occlusion molars Nine months (min)
some time’
Resin and 0.8 mm steel wire and 3/0 nylon sutures
Chagas e Silva
– cantilever design with one supporting tooth, One mandibular third
et al., 201322 Four years 100%
splinted for two weeks molar

the operating clinician may also influence the
success.14
Interestingly, very recently, Mainkar (2017)
performed a systematic review of literature
to compare the survival rate of intentionally
reimplanted teeth versus single tooth implants.
It was revealed that reimplantation showed an
average survival rate of 89.1%. This proved to
be very close to that of the five-year survival
rate of a single tooth implant (96.3% shown by
Jung et al.) and, in fact, a far more cost-effective
alternative option.15
Unfortunately, searches for the benefits of
this review of third molar autotransplantation,
and those from other literature reviews
specifically looking at autotransplantation
of developing third molars, have revealed
nothing in the way of large comprehensive
studies. Developing on from case reports
and series, somewhat modestly larger
studies include those by Yu et al. (2017),
Mejàre et al. (2004), Akiyama et al. (1998)
and Yan et al. (2010). With the exception of
the latter, the other studies listed look at the
success of third molars with complete root
formation. Mejàre et al. prospectively follow
the autotransplantation of 50 third molars
in 50 patients, which show a cumulative
survival rate of 81.1% over four years. 96%
of those remaining at the four-year follow-up
encouragingly showed a normal periapical
status radiographically. It should be noted,
however, that all of these cases were electively
endodontically treated within four weeks.16 Yu
et al. (2017) more recently published a ten-year
comparative study looking at similar numbers
of autotransplanted mature third molars (65
molars in 60 patients) with an average age
of 33.1 years. They compared the success of
immediate autotransplantation, essentially into
a fresh extraction socket of an unrestorable
tooth (control), with autotransplantation
into a purposefully made, surgically prepared
socket. The average follow-up for this study
was longer at 9.9 years, and the survival
rates were also encouragingly high at over
93% for both the control and surgically
prepared autotransplantations when used in
conjunction with guided bone regeneration.17
Akiyama et al. report a more modest sample
size of 25 third molars, which were again
endodontically treated within a month. They
do not report a percentage success rate but
instead comment briefly on the clinical and
radiographic appearance at follow-up. They
report that all teeth at follow-up were clinically
firmer in stability with no inflammation, and
radiographically a continuous PDL space
was evident with no evidence of progressive
root resorption.18 Further cases of immediate
autotransplantation are reviewed by Yan et al.
(n = 33 at follow-up of 5.2 years) and they also
report the absence of infection, ankyloses and
resorption.19
The results from the literature appear to
be very encouraging, with many authors
concluding that autotransplantation, though
not commonly used, is a reasonable and
acceptable alternative option for patients to
consider.16,18,19
Surgery, sockets, sutures and splints
It has already been eluded to that the
stabilisation methods post-surgery differ in
the literature. But what about the surgical

BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 228 NO. 4 | February 28 2020 249

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to British Dental Association 2020
 CLINICAL
procedure itself? Beginning with tooth
selection, the donor tooth is most often
selected from the same quadrant, as this tends
to conform morphologically to the adjacent
teeth,16 though as previously mentioned third
molars can be utilised from the opposing arch
if better suited.6,18 Cases reports in the literature
tend to be for that of replacement of a tooth in
the mandible; nevertheless, aforementioned
studies also show the versatility of third molar
autotransplantation in their use at recipient
sites, including maxillary premolar and molar
sites.16
Donor teeth need to be extracted as
atraumatically as possible to avoid excessive
damage to the PDL fibres. Surgical approaches
have been described to include full-thickness
flap retraction and subsequent ostectomy to
avoid damage to the PDL.17 The extracted tooth
can then either be stored in saline-soaked
gauze, saline solution or remain in the donor
site while the socket is prepared.7,16,18
Sockets will require some modification to
allow effective seating of the donor tooth. The
intra-alveolar septum will require removal
if it interferes with the seating of the donor
tooth which often, being a third molar, will
have conical or convergent roots. This can be
removed manually with rongeurs7 or surgically
with a low-speed round bur which can also be
used to modify the size of the socket.19 Mejàre
et al. suggest that the donor tooth can, in some
cases, require adjustment with a diamond
bur to achieve a desirable fit and moreover
can require rotation through 90 degrees or
even 180 degrees to allow seating if space is
limited. Ideally, the normal orientation of the
tooth should be preserved.16 Yu et al. compare
this ‘fresh extraction socket’ technique with
a technique whereby a socket is surgically
created. For example, in cases where teeth have
been extracted years ago with full healing, or
are congenitally missing, sockets are fabricated
using implant drill burs of increasing size. The
authors report the importance of copious
irrigation with saline to avoid thermal damage
with this approach.17
Once transplanted, the tooth needs to be
stabilised. Table 2 summarises a number of
different techniques reported.
Interestingly, perhaps avoiding the use of
stabilisation splints altogether may still lead
to a favourable outcome. An 86% success rate
was shown for autotransplanted teeth (n = 96),
followed over ten years, where no stabilisation
was used at all; only from the inherent frictional
resistance from the adjacent tooth.23 It seems
250
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to British Dental Association 2020
Oral surgery
reasonable and logical, therefore, to offer a
short-term, minimal and flexible splinting
protocol (no more than 7–10 days)7 to ensure
maximum physiological advantage.
Elective endodontics
The unavoidable and perhaps glaringly obvious
concern affecting the prognosis of the donor
tooth that comes hand-in-hand with tooth
transplantation is the complete severing of
the PDL fibres and neurovascular bundle.
The prognosis of the transplanted tooth will
depend on the success of the healing process.
Machado et al. (2015) suggest from their meta-
analysis that tooth autotransplantation survival
rates ranged from 75.3% to 91% with an effect
size of 81%.24
The majority of reports in the literature
report electively endodontically treating teeth
with a closed apex or complete root formation,
particularly in adult patients. This is compared
with the management of developing immature
root apices, where the consensus appears to
be to monitor and allow for potential pulpal
healing. The exact timing of this endodontic
treatment varies across studies from 1–2 weeks
post-transplantation; the risk of root resorption
is doubled if root canal treatment is started any
later.25 Other authors suggest that endodontics
started within a slightly longer period of
four weeks is adequate, but make clear that
root canal treatment is an absolute necessity for
mature teeth in order to prevent infection and
inflammatory root resoption.16 Mendes and
Rocha’s (2004) literature review cites a pulpal
healing capability after autotransplantation of
only 15% for mature teeth, compared to 96%
for immature roots.16,26
Is there a case to be stated, nevertheless, for
monitoring the vitality of transplanted teeth,
regardless of their stage of development, in
order to inform your decision to choose root
canal treatment first, especially considering
the more complex root canal morphology of
third molars? The patients within Yu et al.’s
study,17 which contained only mature teeth,
were treated according to age. For those
patients over the age of 20, elective root canal
treatment was provided, and for those younger,
the vitality was monitored and endodontics
was provided only if a negative response
was observed. Another study utilising only
completely or near-completely formed teeth
show vitality of molar teeth remaining at
three months and, furthermore, with 29 out
of 41 molars retaining vitality over the entire
follow-up period (an average of eight years).23
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 228 NO. 4 | February 28 2020
Conclusions
The literature available for third molar
autotransplantation as a technique, especially
considering larger studies, is limited. Those
that are available, however, show promising
success rates. Autotransplantation offers
advantages and disadvantages, both of which
need to be carefully considered by the patient in
order to reach an informed decision regarding
treatment. It offers arguably a better alternative
to fixed or removable prostheses with the
avoidance of preparation of adjacent teeth. It
also offers comparative cost-effectiveness, but
this is notwithstanding the disadvantages of the
surgical approach and overall poor prediction
of outcome. There is also the possibility of
eventual loss of the tooth due to unfavourable
outcomes, such as clinical attachment loss and
root resorption.7 However, should the patient
be amenable to surgery, is there much to lose,
and perhaps far more to gain, from attempting
autotransplantation in the first instance in
the appropriate patient by an experienced
clinician? Careful patient selection and
long-term follow-up, however, remain crucial
to autotransplantation success.
References
1. Natiella J R, Armitage J E, Greene G W. The replantation
and transplantation of teeth: A review. Oral Surg Oral
Med Oral Pathol 1970; 29: 397–419.
2. Cohen A S, Shen T C, Pogrel M A. Transplanting teeth
successfully: autografts and allografts that work. J Am
Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 481–453.
3. Pearson S. Transplanting of Teeth. 2017. Available at
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/libraryandpublications/library/
blog/transplantingofteeth/ (accessed October 2019).
4. Hale M L. Autogenous transplants. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol 1956; 9: 76–83.
5. Stenvik A, Zachrisson B U. Missing anterior teeth:
orthodontic closure and transplantation as viable options to
conventional replacements. Endod Topics 2006; 14: 41−50.
6. Zakershahrak M, Moshari A, Vatanpour M, Khalilak Z,
Jalali Ara A. Autogenous Transplantation for Replacing a
Hopeless Tooth. Iran Endod J 2017; 12: 124–127.
7. Mendes R A, Rocha G. Mandibular Third Molar
Autotransplantation – Literature Review with Clinical
Cases. J Can Dent Assoc 2004; 70: 761–766.
8. Nimčenko T, Omerca G, Varinauskas V, Bramanti E,
Signorino F, Cicciù M. Tooth auto-transplantation as an
alternative treatment option: A literature review. Dent
Res J (Isfahan) 2013; 10: 1–6.
9. EzEldeen M, Wyatt J, Al-Rimawi A et al. Use of CBCT
Guidance for Tooth Autotransplantation in Children.
J Dent Res 2019; 98: 406–413.
10. Anssari Moin D, Verweij J P, Waars H, van Merkesteyn R,
Wismeijer D. Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Template-
Guided Autotransplantation of Teeth With Custom
Three-Dimensional Designed/Printed Surgical Tooling:
A Cadaveric Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; DOI:
10.1016/j.joms.2016.12.049.
11. Tsukiboshi M. Autotransplantation of teeth:
requirements for predictable success. Dent Traumatol
2002; 18: 157–180.
12. Czochrowska E M, Stenvik A, Bjercke B, Zachrisson
B U. Outcome of tooth transplantation: Survival and
success rates 17–41 years posttreatment. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 110–119.

13. Andreason J O, Paulsen H U, Yu Z, Bayer T, Schwartz O.
A long-term study of 370 autotransplanted premolars.
Part II. Tooth survival and pulp healing subsequent to
transplantation. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12: 14–24.
14. Andreasen J O, Andreasen F M, Andersson L (eds).
Textbook and Colour Atlas of Traumatic Injuries to the
Teeth. 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
15. Mainkar A. A Systematic Review of the Survival of Teeth
Intentionally Reimplanted with a Modern Technique
and Cost-effectiveness Compared with Single-tooth
implants. J Endod 2017; 43: 1963–1968.
16. Mejàre B, Wannfors K, Jansson L. A prospective study
on transplantation of third molars with complete root
formation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Radiol Endod
2004; 97: 231–238.
17. Yu H J, Jia P, Lv Z, Qiu L X. Autotransplantation of third
molars with completely formed roots into surgically
created sockets and fresh extraction sockets: A 10-year
Appendix 1 Clinical photographs
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 228 NO. 4 | February 28 2020
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to British Dental Association 2020
Oral surgery
comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46:
531–538.
18. Akiyama Y, Fukuda H, Hashimoto K. A clinical and
radiographic study of 25 autotransplanted third molars.
J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 640–644.
19. Yan Q, Li B, Long X. Immediate autotransplantation of
mandibular third molar in China. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: 436–440.
20. Bauss O, Schwestka-Polly R, Schilke R, Kiliaridis S. Effects
of Different Splinting Methods and Fixation Periods on
Root Development of Autotransplanted Immature Third
Molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 304–310.
21. Nimčenko T, Omerca G, Bramanti E, Cervino G, Laino L,
Cicciù M. Autogenous wisdom tooth transplantation: A
case series with 6–9 months follow-up. Dent Res J 2014;
11: 705–710.
22. Chagas e Silva M H, Lacerda M F, Chaves Md, Campos
C N. Autotransplantation of a Mandibular Third Molar:
CLINICAL
A Case Report with 5 Years of Follow-up. Braz Dent J
2013; 24: 289–294.
23. Akkocaoglu M, Kasaboglu O. Success rate of
autotransplanted teeth without stabilisation by splints:
a long-term clinical and radiological follow-up. Br J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2005; 43: 31–35.
24. Machado L A, Nascimento R R, Ferreira D M,
Mattos C T, Vilella O V. Long-term prognosis of
tooth autotransplantation: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45:
610–617.
25. Chung W C, Tu Y K, Lin Y H, Lu H K. Outcomes of
autotransplanted teeth with complete root formation: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol
2014; 41: 412–423.
26. Andreason J O. Autotransplantation of molars. In: Atlas
of replantation and transplantation of teeth. pp 111–134.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1992.
251