ArticleBrazilian dental journal
Retrospective analysis of survival of avulsed and replanted permanent teeth according to 2012 or 2020 IADT Guidelines.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paediatric dental trauma: insights from epidemiological studies and management recommendations.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of tooth replantation: from a biological basis to clinical application.Annals of medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Awareness of Adolescents on the Emergency Management of Traumatic Dental Injuries.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- The Dilemma of Delayed Replantation of an Avulsed Tooth-Case Presentation.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
- Delayed replantation of avulsed permanent maxillary central incisor: Case report with 6-year follow-up.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the survival of replanted teeth that followed the 2012 or the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines. Sixty-two permanent replanted teeth were retrospectively assessed (IADT 2012, n = 45; IADT 2020, n = 17). Five years after replantation (from January 2017 to December 2021), clinical and radiographic examinations were performed. A significance level of 95% was considered to evaluate the outcomes. Thirty-one teeth (50.0%) remained in their sockets and 31 (50.0%) were lost due to external root resorption. Of the 25 (40.3%) teeth replanted within one hour, 16 (64.0%) remained in their sockets, and 9 (36.0%) were lost. Twenty-two (71.0%) of all 31 lost teeth had an extra-alveolar time of more than one hour. Twelve teeth remained in their sockets without resorption: 8 (66.7%) were replanted within one hour, 2 (16.7%) followed the 2012 IADT, and 2 (16.7%) the 2020 IADT guidelines for late replantation. There was a significant difference (p <0.05) in the extra-alveolar time (< one hour), but without difference between the guidelines in late replantation (p > 0.05). Replanted teeth following both, 2012 or 2020 IADT guidelines, have similar clinical outcomes. The extra-alveolar time of less than one hour was demonstrated to be important to keep the permanent tooth in its socket.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.