University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut.
J Endod. 2017 Dec;43(12):1963-1968. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.08.019. Epub 2017 Oct 20.
The aim of this study was to investigate the survival rate of teeth intentionally replanted with a modern technique and to compare their cost-effectiveness with that of single-tooth implants.
Four databases were systematically searched for articles that met inclusion criteria published between January 1966 and February 2017. Overall survival rate of intentional replantation was determined through a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Cost of different procedures was determined from the 2016 American Dental Association Dental Fees Survey. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for different treatment modalities.
Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis resulted in a survival rate of 89.1% (95% confidence interval, 83.8%-94.4%). Compared with a single-tooth implant, intentional replantation was more cost-effective even when custom post/core and crown are also needed.
The meta-analysis revealed a high survival rate for intentional replantation. Although the survival rate of implants is higher, intentional replantation is a more cost-effective treatment modality. Intentional replantation should be a treatment option discussed with patients, especially because an implant can still be placed if intentional replantation is unsuccessful.
本研究旨在调查采用现代技术进行的有计划再植牙的存活率，并将其与单颗牙种植体的成本效益进行比较。
系统检索了 1966 年 1 月至 2017 年 2 月期间符合纳入标准的文献，使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析来确定有计划再植的总体存活率。从 2016 年美国牙科协会牙科费用调查中确定了不同程序的成本。对不同治疗方式进行成本效益分析。
符合纳入标准的研究有 6 项。荟萃分析得出的存活率为 89.1%（95%置信区间，83.8%-94.4%）。即使需要定制桩核和牙冠，与单颗牙种植体相比，有计划再植的成本效益更高。
荟萃分析显示，有计划再植的存活率较高。尽管种植体的存活率更高，但有计划再植是一种更具成本效益的治疗方式。有计划再植应作为一种治疗选择与患者讨论，特别是因为如果有计划再植不成功，仍然可以植入种植体。
