Amerigo Giudice

Autotransplantation is a successful technique to replace compromised teeth. This study presents a computer-guided surgical approach for preparing the receiving socket for a mature mandibular third molar donor tooth with a wait-and-see approach instead of prophylactic endodontic treatment. A 42-year-old woman developed root resorption of tooth 3.7. Extraction of 3.7 and autotransplantation of 3.8 was planned, following a 6-week orthodontic phase for periodontal ligament activation and teeth mobilization. Due to the different root morphology between the compromised and donor teeth and the high mandibular bone density, the receiving socket preparation was performed using guided surgery templates. Two surgical splints were designed with a surgical planning software. Tooth 3.7 was extracted, the recipient site was guided-milled, and tooth 3.8 was transplanted into the new socket in approximately one second of extra-alveolar time. The rapidity of the extra-alveolar time facilitated complete healing without resorting to root canal treatment. Five-year radiological control does not show any periapical lesion or root resorption. The surgical procedure for tooth autotransplantation is fundamental: it must be as atraumatic as possible to preserve the periodontal ligament of the tooth and the receiving socket, and the dentist must minimize the extra-alveolar time. Guided surgery is a reliable solution to combine all these aspects.

Background: Macro-geometry and surgical implant site preparation are two of the main factors influencing implant stability and potentially determining loading protocol. The purpose of this study was to assess the initial stability of various implant macro-designs using both magnetodynamic and traditional osteotomy techniques in low-density bone. The parameters examined included peak insertion torque (PIT), implant stability quotient (ISQ), and peak removal torque (PRT). Methods: Four groups of 34 implants each were identified in accordance with the surgery and implant shape: T5 group (Five implant and osteotomy using drills); M5 group (Five implant and magnetodynamic osteotomy using Magnetic Mallet); TT group (TiSmart implant and osteotomy with drills); and MT group (TiSmart implant and magnetodynamic osteotomy). Every implant was placed into a low-density bone animal model and scanned using CBCT. The PIT and PRT were digitally measured in Newton-centimeters (Ncm) using a torque gauge device. The ISQ was analyzed by conducting resonance frequency analysis. Results: The PIT values were 25.04 ± 4.4 Ncm for T5, 30.62 ± 3.81 Ncm for M5, 30 ± 3.74 Ncm for TT, and 32.05 ± 3.55 Ncm for MT. The average ISQ values were 68.11 ± 3.86 for T5, 71.41 ± 3.69 for M5, 70.88 ± 3.08 for TT, and 73 ± 3.5 for MT. The PRT values were 16.47 ± 4.56 Ncm for T5, 26.02 ± 4.03 Ncm for M5, 23.91 ± 3.28 Ncm for TT, and 26.93 ± 3.96 Ncm for MT. Based on our data analysis using a t-test with α = 0.05, significant differences in PIT were observed between TT and T5 (p < 0.0001), M5 and T5 (p < 0.0001), and MT and TT (p = 0.02). Significant differences in the ISQ were found between TT and T5 (p = 0.001), M5 and T5 (p < 0.001), and MT and TT (p = 0.01). The PRT also exhibited significant differences between TT and T5, M5 and T5, and MT and TT (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Our data showed favorable primary implant stability (PS) values for both implant macro-geometries. Furthermore, the magnetodynamic preparation technique appears to be more effective in achieving higher PS values in low-density bone.