Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Aim/Objective: This umbrella review of systematic reviews aims to summarize the available data regarding both success and survival rates of tooth autotransplantation, in addition to analyzing the risk factors that are connected to those rates. Methods: This umbrella review was performed according to the evaluation of various meta-analyses and systematic reviews following AMSTAR2 guidelines. A systematic search of literature on PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Six systematic reviews were included. Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. It is registered in PROSPERO under the registration number (CRD-42023415623). Results: The studies reviewed were written from 2014 to 2018, which extracted the information from various studies spanning from 1968 to 2014. According to the selected studies regarding autotransplanted teeth in humans, they showed the following: A survival rate overall of 87.39% and a success rate overall of 90.29%. These factors were the most common in relation to the success of the autotransplanted teeth: age, gender, and stage of root development. On the other hand, common unfavorable results linked to the transplanted teeth in these studies were failure, ankylosis, and internal root resorption, followed by extraction and hypermobility. Conclusions: The wide body of evidence gathered illustrates that autotransplantation is an operation that dispenses high rates of survival and success. Furthermore, risk factors like root development stage, recipient site, and donor tooth type established a remarkable association with the negative outcomes of the procedure. For successful tooth autotransplantation, patient selection is crucial. Younger patients and those with donor teeth at an optimal stage of root development typically experience better outcomes. Preoperative planning should include comprehensive evaluations and advanced imaging techniques to accurately assess both the donor tooth and the recipient site. Nonetheless, on account of heterogeneity and the quality of the studies included in this investigation, caution should be taken when interpreting the mentioned results.
Jaber et al. (Wed,) studied this question.