Effectiveness of intentional replantation in managing teeth with apical periodontitis: A systematic review

Background: Intentional replantation (IR) to treat disease of endodontic origin remains controversial. While IR has been advocated by some clinicians as another valid treatment option, others consider it as a treatment procedure of last resort. Objective: To systematically review and critically evaluate the effectiveness of IR compared with nonsurgical root canal treatment/retreatment or apical surgery in terms of clinical and patient-related outcomes in managing permanent teeth with apical periodontitis (AP). Methods: A literature search of five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials), and the grey literature (Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, DART-Europe E-theses Portal, British Library E-Theses Online Service), from inception to November 2021, was conducted. Randomised clinical trials, comparative clinical trials (CCTs), nonrandomised, retrospective, and prospective comparative cohort and case-control two arm studies which evaluated clinical and/or patient-related outcomes of permanent teeth with AP treated with IR compared with nonsurgical root canal treatment/retreatment or apical surgery were identified. The quality of the studies was appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0), the Robins-I for nonrandomized controlled clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Two independent reviewers were involved in the literature selection, performed the data extraction and the appraisal of the studies identified; disagreements were resolved in conjunction with a third reviewer. Results: No comparative study was identified from the literature search. Four longitudinal studies (one prospective and three retrospective) were identified during the screening of titles and abstracts but were excluded after reading the full text, because only IR was evaluated (single arm studies). Discussion: The available evidence on IR is mainly based on observational studies, which reported high overall mid- to long-term survival, and low complication rates. The results suggest that IR may represent an alternative treatment procedure to solve problems of endodontic origin. However, in the absence of high-quality evidence from CCTs, clinical decision-making should be on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with the clinician's experience and the patient's preference. Conclusion: Clinical studies showed that IR may be a treatment modality to manage problems of endodontic origin. However, clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of IR with nonsurgical root canal treatment/retreatment or apical surgery are still required given the paucity of evidence.