Stabilization of autotransplanted teeth using thermoplastic retainers

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridözdemir, hakan/0000-0001-9550-1999
dc.authoridSarı, Fatih/0000-0002-4818-8562
dc.authoridPolat, Serkan/0000-0002-5814-5451;
dc.authorwosidözdemir, hakan/IXE-1202-2023
dc.authorwosidOzdemir, Hakan/AAG-3194-2021
dc.authorwosidSarı, Fatih/AAG-5681-2020
dc.authorwosidPolat, Serkan/M-2502-2013
dc.authorwosidPolat, Serkan/JAC-3478-2023
dc.contributor.authorIsa-Kara, Muhammed
dc.contributor.authorSari, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorEmre-Coskun, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorKustarci, Alper
dc.contributor.authorBurak-Polat, Hidayet
dc.contributor.authorOzdemir, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorPolat, Serkan
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:32:51Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:32:51Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: Different fixation techniques have been used for stabilization of autotransplanted teeth. Because rigid or extended fixation periods can cause complications such as ankylosis and disturbances of pulpal revascularization, our aim was to evaluate an alternative technique, a removable splint, for improving the success rate of autotransplanted molar teeth. Study Design: In 44 patients, (20 male and 24 female patients), 45 transplanted teeth were analyzed. These cases were followed for 31 to 47 months after operation. Transplanted teeth were evaluated after use of a thermoplastic retainer for 1 month, in terms of success rate and dissatisfaction with this apparatus. The primary stability, ankylosis, and root resorption were also analyzed. Results: To date, 1 transplant was extracted after 6 months due to unpreventable periapical root inflammation, and 2 transplants were extracted after one year due to external root resorption. Although 2 ankylosed transplants were still functional after an average follow-up period of three years, with no dissatisfaction by the patients, these cases were treated as failures because of the probable risk for external root resorption. The remaining 40 (88.8 % success rate) transplants remained asymptomatic and functioning for a mean follow-up period of 37 months. In the assessment of dissatisfaction with the thermoplastic retainer, 36 (81.8 %) patients had no or little dissatisfaction, 4 (9 %) patients had very appreciable or excessive dissatisfaction, and 4 (9 %) patients had moderate dissatisfaction. Conclusions: A thermoplastic retainer for use after autotransplantation of third molar teeth is a reasonable and useful method and a good alternative to conventional rigid or semi-rigid splints. This technique was especially useful in autotransplanted teeth that had poor stability, i.e., in cases in which it is conventionally advised to use long-term rigid or semi-rigid splints.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4317/medoral.16.e369
dc.identifier.endpageE375en_US
dc.identifier.issn1698-6946
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21196840en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-79957934179en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpageE369en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.16.e369
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/95347
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000291363900013en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMedicina Oral S Len_US
dc.relation.ispartofMedicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAutotransplanted third molar teethen_US
dc.subjectthermoplastic retaineren_US
dc.subjectsplintingen_US
dc.titleStabilization of autotransplanted teeth using thermoplastic retainersen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu