ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
The use of biologic adjuncts in tooth autotransplantation: a scoping review.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 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
purposeTo summarize the available clinical evidence on biological adjuncts in tooth autotransplantation, including adjunct types, application protocols, procedural variables, reported outcomes, and evidence gaps.
methodsThis scoping review followed JBI guidance and PRISMA-ScR. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and LILACS were searched from inception to 21 June 2026. Clinical human studies reporting tooth autotransplantation with at least one biologic adjunct and clinical or radiographic outcomes were included. Data were charted for study characteristics, population, autotransplanted teeth, adjunct type and application protocol, follow-up, and key findings. Critical appraisal was performed using design-specific tools.
resultsTwenty-two sources published between 2005 and 2026 were included, comprising 234 patients and 257 autotransplanted teeth. Most evidence came from case reports and case series, with few comparative clinical studies. Platelet-derived preparations were the most frequently reported adjuncts, including L-PRF, A-PRF, PRP, PRGF, and CGF. Enamel matrix derivative was also reported, mainly as a root-surface application. Most studies described favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, but protocols, root maturity, recipient-site conditions, stabilization, endodontic strategies, follow-up schedules, and outcome definitions were highly heterogeneous. Comparative and retrospective studies had serious risk of bias, mainly due to confounding.
conclusionBiological adjuncts in tooth autotransplantation have demonstrated clinical feasibility in selected reports, but current evidence is insufficient to establish their independent benefit or superiority over standard protocols. Root maturity and procedural variables appear to be more consistent determinants of outcomes and should guide interpretation.
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.