ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Patient versus clinician-reported outcomes following tooth autotransplantation: part II of a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis 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
methodsPatients 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.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionsTooth 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.