What question did this study set out to answer?

July 10, 2026Open Access

Patient versus clinician-reported outcomes following tooth autotransplantation: part II of a retrospective cohort study

CRClemens RaabeGoethe University Frankfurt SJSimone F. M. JannerUniversity of Bern MBMichael M. BornsteinUniversity of Basel

Key Points

Assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) following tooth autotransplantation and identify influencing factors.
Retrospective cohort study with 33 patients and 37 autotransplanted teeth.
Follow-up examination and VAS-based questionnaires to assess treatment domains.
Independent evaluations by oral surgeons and general practitioners using standardized assessments.
Patient satisfaction exceeded 90% for oral hygiene accessibility and fulfillment of expectations.
CROs were significantly lower than PROs for esthetic satisfaction and oral hygiene accessibility (p ≤ 0.005).
Infraposition significantly reduced both PROs and CROs (p ≤ 0.05).

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) following tooth autotransplantation, and to identify factors influencing PROs and CROs. Materials and methods Patients with autotransplanted teeth underwent a follow-up examination and completed visual analogue scale (VAS)-based questionnaires assessing multiple treatment domains. Corresponding items were independently evaluated by three oral surgeons and three general practitioners, based on standardized photographs, periapical radiographs, and digital scans of the region of interest. Inter-rater agreement was assessed, and associations between transplant characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. Results The sample comprised 33 patients with 37 autotransplanted teeth and a mean follow-up of 8.5 ± 5.8 years. Patients’ satisfaction exceeded 90% for oral hygiene accessibility and fulfillment of expectations, whereas esthetic satisfaction (81%) and quality-of-life impact (60.5%) were rated lowest. CROs were significantly lower than PROs for esthetic satisfaction, oral hygiene accessibility, and fulfillment of expectations, whereas PROs were lower for quality-of-life impact ( p ≤ 0.005). Inter-rater agreement among clinicians ranged from poor to fair. Infraposition significantly reduced both PROs and CROs ( p ≤ 0.05). Additionally, general practitioners assigned significantly lower CROs than to oral surgeons, particularly in the presence of healing sequelae and gingival recession defects ( p ≤ 0.045). Conclusions Tooth autotranslantation was associated with high-long-term patient satisfaction, whereas clinicians rated outcomes more critically. Infraposition was the only variable negatively affecting both PROs and CROs. Clinical relevance Despite more critical clinician assessments, patients reported high satisfaction following tooth autotransplantation, supporting this treatment approach as a valuable option for replacement of missing teeth.

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper