ArticleDental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology2025
Clinical Efficacy of CBCT and 3D-Printed Replicas in Molar Autotransplantation: A Controlled Clinical Trial.
Article in Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an AI-assisted, Dual-Template Workflow in Improving the Accuracy of Tooth Autotransplantation.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes of two surgical protocols for the autotransplantation of mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Oral rehabilitation using three-dimensional-guided autotransplantation following pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma and secondary non-Hodgkin lymphoma with severe dental late effects: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Article
- Sequential Double Autotransplantation Using Immature Teeth as First-Stage Autotransplants to Preserve Alveolar Architecture: A Case Series.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Tooth Autotransplantation in Contemporary Dentistry: A Narrative Review of Its Clinical Applications and Biological Basis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Semi-Immediate Autotransplantation of a Maxillary Third Molar With Unfavorable Root Anatomy: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo evaluate the efficacy of the combined cone-beam (CBCT)/3D-replicas protocol on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of autotransplanted molars. MATERIAL AND
methodsControlled clinical trial registered ISRCTN13563091 from August 2019 to September 2022. Patients aged 13-22 years requiring permanent premolar extraction and having at least one non-erupted third molar were enrolled at the Institute of Stomatology, Stradins University, Riga, Latvia. Patients in the 3D-replicas (n = 30) underwent maxillary CBCT scans and had 3D-printed replicas of the third molar fabricated, while the control group (n = 28) did not. The clinical outcomes included tooth mobility, bleeding on probing, and periodontal pocket depth assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The radiographic outcomes included root development, obliteration, periapical status, and crown changes at 12 months.
resultsOf the 55 patients assigned to interventions, 46 completed the study. No significant differences in survival and radiographic outcomes were found between the control (n = 22) and 3D-replica group (n = 24): root development (p = 0.3), root resorption (p = 0.057), periapical status (p = 0.7), and crown/root ratio change (p = 0.4). Logistic regression showed no significant associations between radiologic predictors (root resorption: p = 0.4; periapical status: p > 0.9; root development: p = 0.8). Significant clinical outcome predictors included total operative time (β = 0.0043, p = 0.049), Moorrees' stage (stage 4: β = -0.31, p < 0.001; stage 5: β = -0.39, p < 0.001), and four donor placement times (β = 0.93, p < 0.001), but group assignment was not a significant predictor.
conclusionsThe CBCT/3D-replica protocol showed no significant differences in the clinical or radiological outcomes. The high success rates in both groups suggest that the protocol is valuable primarily for optimizing surgical efficiency and as a training tool for clinicians.
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.