Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32112013›Full record

ReviewBritish dental journal2020

Autotransplantation of third molars: a literature review and preliminary protocols.

Lucia Armstrong, Claire O'Reilly, Bilal Ahmed

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Editorial: The future of third molar surgery.Frontiers in oral health · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Is dental autotransplantation underestimated and underused by Syrian dentists?Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lucia ArmstrongDCT in Paediatric Dentistry, Birmingham Children's Hospital, UK. lucia.armstrong@nhs.net.
Claire O'ReillyACF in Paediatric Dentistry, Birmingham Dental Hospital and School of Dentistry, UK. claire.o'reilly1@nhs.net.
Bilal AhmedSpecialist in Oral Surgery, Birmingham Dental Hospital and School of Dentistry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Molar, ThirdTooth ExtractionHumansTransplantation, Autologous

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.