Introduction
Materials and methods
Protocol development and eligibility criteria
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Information sources and literature search
Quality assessment of included studies
Data extraction
Author | Year | Study design |
N
| Age of patients (range) | Donor teeth type (n) | Root developmenta (n) | Recipient site | Splinting procedure | Splinting duration (in weeks) | Orthodontics (%) | Follow-up in months (mean) | NOS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mertens et al. [31] | 2014 | R | 25 | 17 (10–29) | Md PM2 (10), M3 (15) | 3 (21), unknown (4) | Mx I1 (10), Mx PM2 (1), Mx M1 (5), Md PM2 (2), Md M1 (6), Md M2 (1) | Wire and suture | Wire, 6; suture, 2 | – | 120–240 (−) | 4 |
Nagori et al. [3] | 2014a | P | 45 | – | Mx M3, Md M3 | 2 (11), 3 (13), 4 (18), 5 (3) | Mx M1, Md M1 | Wire or suture | Wire, 2; suture, 1 | No | 15–24 (20) | 6 |
Nagori et al. [4] | 2014b | P | 13 | – | Mx M3, Md M3 | 1–2, 2, 3, 4 | Mx M1, Mx M2, Md M1, Md M2 | Wire or suture | Wire, > 2; suture, 1 | – | - (16) | 5 |
de Carvalho et al. [37] | 2014 | R | 21 | – | I, C, PM, M2, M3 | Mean stage 3 | – | – | – | Yes (15%) | 6–240 (84) | 6 |
Plakwicz et al. [5] | 2013 | P | 23 | 13 (10–17) | Mx PM2 (17), Md PM2 (6) | Mean stage 2–3, (range 1–4) | Mx PM2 (2), Md PM2(13), Mx I1 (4), Mx PM2 (1), Md PM2 (3) | Sutures | 2 | Yes (17%) | 6–78 (35) | 7 |
Schütz et al. [6] | 2013 | R | 57 | 17 (14–21) | Mx M3 (47), Md M3 (10) | 2 (12), 3 (26), 4–5 (19) | Mx PM2 (6), Mx M1 (19), Mx M2 (1), Md PM2 (17), Md M1 (12), Md M2 (2) | Wire (86%), orthodontic arch (12%), suture (2%) | 5 (2–9) | Yes (12%) | 8–64 (26) | 5 |
Shahbazian et al. [33] | 2013 | P | 24 | 11 (9–18) | PM (22), M (2) | 1–2 (1), 2–3 (21), 3–4 (2) | I (11), PM (11), PM/M (2) | Flexible orthodontic wire | – | No | 12 (12) | 7 |
Mendoza-Mendoza et al. [7] | 2012 | R | 12 | 10 (9–13) | PM | 2 (4), 3 (7), 4 (3) | Mx I1 | Suture | – | Yes (100%) | 120–168 (144) | 4 |
Isa-Kara et al. [8] | 2011 | P | 11 | – | Mx M3, Md M3 | > 2 | Mx M1, Md M1, Md M2 | Thermoplastic retainer | 4 | No | 31–47 (37) | 6 |
Vilhjálmsson et al. [9] | 2010 | R | 26 | – | Mx I1, Mx I2, Mx C, Mx PM, Mx PM, Mx M3 | 3 (11), 4 (6), 5 (9) | Mx I1, Mx I2, Mx C | – | – | – | 1–158 (55) | 6 |
Gonnissen et al. [10] | 2010 | R | 17 | – | Mx C, Md C, Md M | 2–3 (3), 3–5 (14), unknown (18) | Mx C, Md C | Wire or trauma splint | – | Yes (−) | 72–168 (132) | 4 |
Mensink and van Merke-steyn [11] | 2010 | R | 62 | – | Mx PM | 2–3 (53), 3 (6), unknown (3) | PM | Suture | 1 | Yes (98%) | 12–60 (21) | 5 |
Yan et al. [12] | 2010 | P | 16 | – | Md M3 | 5 | M | Wire or suture | 1 | No | 12–132 (62) | 6 |
Díaz et al. [13] | 2008 | P | 10 | 10 (7–12) | Md PM1 (6), Md PM2 (4) | Open | Mx I1 | Composite wire | 4 (1–9) | Yes (50%) | 5–27 (17) | 6 |
Tanaka et al. [45] | 2008 | R | 19 | – | Mx PM, Md PM | 2 (2), 3 (17) | Mx I, Mx C, Mx PM, Md PM | – | – | Yes (100%) | 48–168 (108) | 5 |
Jonsson and Sigurdsson [14] | 2004 | R | 35 | – | Mx PM1, Mx PM2, Md PM1 | 2–3 (8), 3–4 (21), 4–5 (2), 5 (4) | Mx PM, Md PM2 | Suture | 1–2 | Yes (88%) | 29–267 (124) | 5 |
Myrlund et al. [46] | 2004 | P | 68 | 12 (7–20) | PM | Open | – | – | – | – | 48 (48) | 5 |
Bauss et al. [15] | 2002 | P | 76 | 18 (16–20) | Mx M3 (40); Md M3 (36) | 2, 3 | Mx PM/M (25), Md PM/M (51) | Wire (45%), suture (55%) | Wire, 4; suture, 1 | – | 12–73 (41) | 7 |
Czochrowska et al. [16] | 2002 | R | 33 | 12 (8–15) | Mx I2 (2), Mx PM (10), Md PM (16), supernumerary teeth (2) | Open | Mx I1 (6), Mx I2 (3), Mx C (5), Mx PM (7), Md I (2), Md PM (7) | – | – | Yes (67%) | 204–492 (317) | 4 |
Czochrowska et al. [2] | 2000 | R | 45 | 11 (7–14) | PM | Open | Mx I1 (39), Mx I2 (6) | Suture | 1–2 | Yes (−) | SD 13 (48) | 4 |
Josefsson et al. [17] | 1999 | R | 99 | – | Mx PM1, Mx PM2, Mx M2, Mx M3, Md PM2, Md M3 | Open | Md PM2 | Suture | 1 | Yes (47%) | 48 (48) | 5 |
Lundberg and Isaksson [18] | 1996 | R | 204 | 15 (−) | PM (80), M (122) | 2, 3 | I (6), C (4), PM (158), M (34) | Suture | 1 | – | 6–72 (−) | 5 |
Marcusson and Lilja-Karlander [19] | 1996 | R | 29 | – | PM (21), M (8) | Open | PM, M | Suture | 1 | – | 36–192 (−) | 5 |
Kugelberg et al. [20] | 1994 | R | 23 | – | Mx I, Mx C, Mx PM1, Md I, Md PM1, Md PM2 | 3 | Mx I1, Mx I2 | Suture | 1 | Yes (−) | 12–48 (38) | 5 |
Schatz and Joho [21] | 1992 | R | 40 | 14 (9–20) | Mx M3 (11), Md M3 (9), PM1 (12), PM2 (8) | 1, 2, 3, 4 | – | Orthodontic arch | 2–6 | No | 12–136 (64) | 7 |
Kristerson and Lagerstrom [22] | 1991 | P | 41 | – | PM (21), M (15), C (2), I (1) | 1 (7), 2 (14), 3 (14), 4 (3), 5 (3) | Mx I | Wire or suture | Wire 1–3; suture 1 | – | 48–204 (90) | 5 |
Andreasen et al. [30] | 1990b | P | 337 | – | Mx PM1, Mx PM2, Md PM1, Md PM2 | 0 (2), 1 (4), 2 (73), 3 (210), 4 (28), 5 (20) | Mx anterior; Mx PM; Md PM; other | Suture, flexible rigid, or no splinting | – | Yes (46%) | 12–156 (−) | 6 |
Andreasen et al. [35] | 1990c | P | 337 | – | Mx PM1, Mx PM2, Md PM1, Md PM2 | 0 (2), 1 (4), 2 (73), 3 (210), 4 (28), 5 (20) | Mx anterior; Mx PM; Md PM; other | Suture, flexible rigid, or no splinting | – | Yes (46%) | 12–156 (−) | 6 |
Hernandez and Cuestas-carnero [23] | 1988 | P | 10 | – (13–19) | M3 | Mean stage 1 | M1 | Suture | 2 | – | 36 (36) | 6 |
Kristerson [24] | 1985 | P | 84 | – | Mx PM, Md PM | 1 (21), 2 (14), 3 (38), 4 (9), 5 (2) | – | Orthodontic arch, suture, or stainless steel wires | 1–> 6 | – | 36–216 (76) | 7 |
Borring-Møller et al. [25] | 1979 | P | 15 | 17 (15–20) | Mx M3 (6), Md M3 (9) | 1, 2, 3 | Mx M1 (5), Md M1 (10) | Wire (40%), suture (60%) | Wire, 6; suture, 1 | No | 3–84 (31) | 6 |
Slagsvold and Bjercke [1] | 1974 | R | 34 | 12 (8–16) | Mx PM1 (5), Mx PM2(13), Md PM1 (2), Md PM2 (14) | 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 | Mx PM (24), Md PM (10) | Sutures | – | No | 40–166 (74) | 4 |
Statistical analysis
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Quality assessment of included studies
Primary outcomes
Survival rate
Author | Overall survival (%) | 1-Year survival (%) | 5-Year survival (%) | 10-Year survival (%) | Success (%) | Ankylosis (%) | Root resorption (%) | Pulp necrosis (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mertens et al. [31] | 96 | 96 | 96 | 96 | 61.1 | 14.3 | 22.2 | 16.7 |
Nagori et al. [3] | 95.6 | 95.6 | – | – | 86.7 | – | 11.1 | 2.2 |
Nagori et al. [4] | 92.3 | 92.3 | – | – | 92.3 | – | – | 7.7 |
de Carvalho et al. [37] | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | – | – | – | – |
Plakwicz et al. [5] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 91.3 | 4.3 | – | 0 |
Schütz et al. [6] | 94.7 | 94.7 | – | – | 94.7 | 0 | – | 3.5 |
Shahbazian et al. [33] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 91.7 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Mendoza-Mendoza et al. [7] | 83.3 | 100 | 100 | 83.3 | 80 | – | 16.7 | 16.7 |
Isa-Kara et al. [8] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 100 | 0 | – | 0 |
Vilhjálmsson et al. [9] | – | – | – | – | 84.6 | – | 15.4 | 0 |
Gonnissen et al. [10] | – | – | – | – | 70.6 | – | – | – |
Mensink and van Merkesteyn [11] | 100 | 100 | – | – | – | 4.8 | 0 | 3.2 |
Yan et al. [12] | 100 | 100 | 100 | – | 100 | – | 0 | 12.5 |
Díaz et al. [13] | 100 | 100 | – | – | – | 0 | 10 | 40 |
Tanaka et al. [45] | 100 | 100 | 100 | – | 100 | – | – | – |
Jonsson and Sigurdsson [14] | 97.1 | 100 | 100 | 97.1 | 91.9 | 0 | 5.7 | 34.3 |
Myrlund et al. [46] | 98.6 | 100 | – | – | 90.5 | – | – | – |
Bauss et al. [15] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 84.2 | 5.3 | – | 9.2 |
Czochrowska et al. [16] | 90.9 | 100 | 100 | 93.9 | 78.8 | 12.1 | – | – |
Czochrowska et al. [2] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 93 | 2.2 | 4.4 | – |
Josefsson et al. [17] | 98 | 98 | – | – | 91.9 | 3 | – | – |
Lundberg and Isaksson [18] | 95.6 | 95.6 | – | – | 94.1 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 3.4 |
Marcusson and Lilja-Karlander [19] | 85.2 | 96.2 | 88.9 | – | – | 0 | 6.5 | 0 |
Kugelberg et al. [20] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 95.7 | 0 | 0 | – |
Schatz and Joho [21] | 100 | 100 | 100 | – | 92.5 | – | 3.3 | 7.5 |
Kristerson and Lagerstrom [22] | – | – | – | – | 90.2 | – | – | – |
Andreasen et al. [30] | 99 | 100 | 99.1 | 99.1 | – | – | – | 7.4 |
Andreasen et al. [35] | – | – | – | – | – | 3.6 | 3.3 | – |
Hernandez and Cuestascarnero [23] | 100 | 100 | – | – | 100 | 0 | 0 | – |
Kristerson [24] | 95.4 | – | – | – | – | 6.9 | 3.4 | 11.5 |
Borring-Møller et al. [25] | 100 | 100 | – | – | – | 0 | 0 | – |
Slagsvold and Bjercke [1] | 100 | 100 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – |
Survival rate | |
Overall (CI 95%) | 98.2% (96.4–99.1%) |
Premolar donor teeth (CI 95%) Molar donor teeth (CI 95%) | 98.4% (96.3–99.4%) 97.2% (93.9–98.8%)a |
The maxilla as recipient site (CI 95%) | a |
The mandible as recipient site (CI 95%) | 98.1% (86.7–99.7%) |
The incisor region as recipient site (CI 95%) | a |
The premolar region as recipient site (CI 95%) | 98.6% (95.4–99.6%) |
The molar region as recipient site (CI 95%) | 97.3% (93.6–98.9%) |
Success rate | |
Overall (CI 95%) | 98.6% (94.8–97.8%) |
Canine donor teeth (CI 95%) | 97.7% (73.6–99.8%) |
Premolar donor teeth (CI 95%) Molar donor teeth (CI 95%) | 98.1% (95.5–99.2%) 95.5% (92.0–97.5%) |
The maxilla as recipient site (CI 95%) | 98.5% (94.5–99.6%) |
The mandible as recipient site (CI 95%) | 97.3% (92.7–99.1%) |
The incisor region as recipient site (CI 95%) | 98.5% (93.8–99.7%) |
The canine region as recipient site (CI 95%) | 97.7% (73.6–99.8%) |
The premolar region as recipient site (CI 95%) | 97.8% (93.6–99.3%) |
The molar region as recipient site (CI 95%) | 95.1% (90.8–97.4%) |
Ankylosis rate | |
Overall (CI 95%) | 2.0% (1.1–3.7%) |
Premolar donor teeth (CI 95%) Molar donor teeth (CI 95%) | 1.9% (0.8–4.7%) 2.2% (0.7–6.3%) |
Root resorption rate | |
Overall (CI 95%) | 2.9% (1.5–5.5%) |
Premolar donor teeth (CI 95%) Molar donor teeth (CI 95%) | 1.5% (0.5–4.7%) 5.0% (2.1–11.7%) |
Pulp necrosis rate | |
Overall (CI 95%) | 3.3% (1.9–5.6%) |
Premolar donor teeth (CI 95%) Molar donor teeth (CI 95%) | 4.4% (2.0–9.3%) 2.5% (1.0–5.9%) |