Autotransplantation of teeth to the anterior maxilla: A systematic review of survival and success,aesthetic presentation and patient‐reported outcome

Background/Aim

Autotransplantation of teeth to the anterior maxilla may be indicated after trauma or in patients with congenitally missing teeth. The aim of this systematic review was to report the current evidence concerning survival and success rate, aesthetic outcome, and patient‐reported outcome of autotransplanted teeth to the anterior maxilla.

Materials and Methods

A MEDLINE search followed by an additional hand search was performed to identify relevant literature. All levels of evidence except case reports were considered. Any publication reporting on 10 or more autotransplanted teeth to the anterior maxilla, and written in English were eligible for this systematic review.

Results

The systematic search identified 95 abstracts. Thirty‐seven full‐text articles were evaluated of which 17 could finally be included. Data on survival and success rate of the transplants could be extracted from 11 studies. Survival rates ranged between 93% and 100% (weighted mean: 96.7%, median: 100%) after 9 months to 22 years of observation (median: 8.75 years). No consensus regarding definition of success criteria of the transplants could be found in the literature. Two and four studies contained data on aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes, respectively. In general, they reported favourable aesthetic results and high patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

The current available evidence suggests a high survival rate after autotransplantation of teeth to the anterior maxilla. However, the level of evidence is low. Limited data on aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes warrant additional research in this field.     

Long-Term Risk of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are considered at high risk of infective endocarditis (IE). However, data on the risk of IE following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are sparse and limited by the lack of long-term follow-up as well as a direct comparison with patients undergoing SAVR.

Quinto Tiberio Angelerio and New Measures for Controlling Plague in 16th-Century Alghero,Sardinia

Plague, a zoonotic disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, has been responsible for at least 3 pandemics. During 1582–1583, a plague outbreak devastated the seaport of Alghero in Sardinia. By analyzing contemporary medical texts and local documentation, we uncovered the pivotal role played by the Protomedicus of Alghero, Quinto Tiberio Angelerio (1532–1617), in controlling the epidemic. Angelerio imposed rules and antiepidemic measures new to the 16th-century sanitary system of Sardinia. Those measures undoubtedly spared the surrounding districts from the spread of the contagion. Angelerio seems to have been an extremely successful public health officer in the history of plague epidemics in Sardinia.     

SAPS 3 is not superior to SAPS 2 in cardiac surgery patients

Objectives. Cardiac surgery patients are excluded from SAPS2 but included in SAPS3. Neither score is evaluated for this exclusive population; however, they are used daily. We hypothesized that SAPS3 may be superior to SAPS2 in outcome prediction in cardiac surgery patients. Design. All consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery between January 2007 and December 2010 were included in our prospective study. Both models were tested with calibration and discrimination statistics. We compared the AUC of the ROC curves by DeLong's method and calculated OCC values. Results. A total of 5207 patients with mean age of 67.2 ± 10.9 years were admitted to the ICU. The mean length of ICU stay was 4.6 ± 7.0 days and the ICU mortality was 5.9%. The two tested models had acceptable discriminatory power (AUC: SAPS2: 0.777–0.875; SAPS3: 0.757–893). SAPS3 had a low AUC and poor calibration on admission day. SAPS2 had poor calibration on Days 1–6 and 8. Conclusions. Despite including cardiac surgery patients, SAPS3 was not superior to SAPS2 in our analysis. In this large cohort of ICU cardiac surgery patients, performance of both SAPS models was generally poor. In this subset of patients, neither scoring system is recommended.