Background/Aim: This study aimed to develop a protocol that combines cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT), software, and 3D printing to design 3D replicas for tooth autotransplantation. The goal was to evaluate the impact of this approach on the extraoral time of the donor teeth and the total surgical time, thereby enhancing surgical efficiency and outcomes. Materials and Methods: A non‐randomized trial (protocol 10.1186/ISRCTN13563091 ) was conducted at Riga Stradins University, enrolling 46 patients (13–22 years old) who required molar extraction and possessed a non‐erupted third molar. The patients were sequentially assigned to a 3D replica group (24 patients) or a control group (22 patients). The primary outcome measured was the extra‐alveolar time of the donor tooth, and the secondary outcome was the total duration of surgery. Both were assessed using a sample size capable of detecting a 10‐min difference. A generalized linear model adjusted for various factors was used to test for significant time differences ( p < .05) between the groups. Results: Forty‐six patients were included in this analysis. The effect of using 3D replicas was not statistically significant and was associated with a decrease in the extraoral time of the donor tooth in seconds ( β = −9.35, 95% CI [−40.86, 22.16]). For the total surgical time in minutes, the use of 3D replicas had a statistically significant impact, reducing the operation duration in minutes ( β = −13.42, 95% CI [−24.50, −2.34]). No early complications were observed in either group, with all teeth present at 3–4 weeks post‐surgery. Conclusions: The integration of 3D printing technology can enhance the efficiency of autotransplantation surgeries, primarily by reducing surgical time.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown Herbst appliance used alone for a single phase of therapy followed by a 1-year observation period. Forty patients (mean age 13.6 ± 1.3 years) with a stable Class I occlusion 1 year following the treatment with the crown Herbst appliance were selected from a prospective sample of 180 consecutively treated Class II patients. No other appliances were used during treatment or during the follow-up period. The dentoskeletal changes were compared with a matched sample of untreated Class II subjects (mean age 13.9 ± 1.6 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment, after Herbst treatment (1 year), and after 1-year follow-up. Overcorrection was avoided intentionally. Treatment produced an increase in mandibular length, a decrease in ANB angle, and a restriction in the vertical growth of posterior maxilla. The maxillary molars moved backward and tipped distally. The lower incisors proclined markedly, and the upper incisors became retroclined. During the follow-up period, the changes primarily were dentoalveolar in nature, with marked rebound of the upper molars and lower incisors, resulting in some increases in overbite and overjet. The occlusal correction of Class II malocclusion observed 1 year after the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase therapy was achieved primary due to the dentoalveolar changes and only limited skeletal change occurred.

Background/Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of the combined cone‐beam (CBCT)/3D‐replicas protocol on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of autotransplanted molars.Material and Methods: Controlled clinical trial registered ISRCTN13563091 from August 2019 to September 2022. Patients aged 13–22 years requiring permanent premolar extraction and having at least one non‐erupted third molar were enrolled at the Institute of Stomatology, Stradins University, Riga, Latvia. Patients in the 3D‐replicas (n = 30) underwent maxillary CBCT scans and had 3D‐printed replicas of the third molar fabricated, while the control group (n = 28) did not. The clinical outcomes included tooth mobility, bleeding on probing, and periodontal pocket depth assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The radiographic outcomes included root development, obliteration, periapical status, and crown changes at 12 months.Results: Of the 55 patients assigned to interventions, 46 completed the study. No significant differences in survival and radiographic outcomes were found between the control (n = 22) and 3D‐replica group (n = 24): root development (p = 0.3), root resorption (p = 0.057), periapical status (p = 0.7), and crown/root ratio change (p = 0.4). Logistic regression showed no significant associations between radiologic predictors (root resorption: p = 0.4; periapical status: p > 0.9; root development: p = 0.8). Significant clinical outcome predictors included total operative time (β = 0.0043, p = 0.049), Moorrees' stage (stage 4: β = −0.31, p < 0.001; stage 5: β = −0.39, p < 0.001), and four donor placement times (β = 0.93, p < 0.001), but group assignment was not a significant predictor.Conclusions: The CBCT/3D‐replica protocol showed no significant differences in the clinical or radiological outcomes. The high success rates in both groups suggest that the protocol is valuable primarily for optimizing surgical efficiency and as a training tool for clinicians.