Traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) of permanent teeth occur frequently in children and young adults. Crown fractures and luxations of these teeth are the most commonly occurring of all dental injuries. Proper diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow up are important for achieving a favorable outcome. Guidelines should assist dentists and patients in decision making and in providing the best care possible, both effectively and efficiently. The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) has developed these Guidelines as a consensus statement after a comprehensive review of the dental literature and working group discussions. Experienced researchers and clinicians from various specialties and the general dentistry community were included in the working group. In cases where the published data did not appear conclusive, recommendations were based on the consensus opinions of the working group. They were then reviewed and approved by the members of the IADT Board of Directors. These Guidelines represent the best current evidence based on literature search and expert opinion. The primary goal of these Guidelines is to delineate an approach for the immediate or urgent care of TDIs. In this first article, the IADT Guidelines cover the management of fractures and luxations of permanent teeth. The IADT does not, and cannot, guarantee favorable outcomes from adherence to the Guidelines. However, the IADT believes that their application can maximize the probability of favorable outcomes.

Avulsion of permanent teeth is one of the most serious dental injuries. Prompt and correct emergency management is essential for attaining the best outcome after this injury. The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) has developed these Guidelines as a consensus statement after a comprehensive review of the dental literature and working group discussions. It represents the current best evidence and practice based on that literature search and expert opinions. Experienced researchers and clinicians from various specialties and the general dentistry community were included in the working group. In cases where the published data did not appear conclusive, recommendations were based on consensus opinions or majority decisions of the working group. They were then reviewed and approved by the members of the IADT Board of Directors.The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide clinicians with the most widely accepted and scientifically plausible approaches for the immediate or urgent care of avulsed permanent teeth.The IADT does not, and cannot, guarantee favorable outcomes from adherence to the Guidelines. However, the IADT believes that their application can maximize the probability of favorable outcomes.

Traumatic injuries to the primary dentition present special problems that often require far different management when compared to that used for the permanent dentition. The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) has developed these Guidelines as a consensus statement after a comprehensive review of the dental literature and working group discussions. Experienced researchers and clinicians from various specialties and the general dentistry community were included in the working group. In cases where the published data did not appear conclusive, recommendations were based on the consensus opinions or majority decisions of the working group. They were then reviewed and approved by the members of the IADT Board of Directors. The primary goal of these Guidelines is to provide clinicians with an approach for the immediate or urgent care of primary teeth injuries based on the best evidence provided by the literature and expert opinions. The IADT cannot, and does not, guarantee favorable outcomes from strict adherence to the Guidelines; however, the IADT believes their application can maximize the probability of favorable outcomes.

Purpose: To evaluate and assess the current knowledge about apexification and regenerative techniques as a meaningful treatment modality and to map the scientific evidence for the efficacy of both methods for the management of traumatised immature teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis.Methods: This systematic review searched five databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid (Medline), and Embase. Published articles written in English were considered for inclusion. The following keywords were used: Regenerative endodontic treatment OR regenerat* OR revital* OR endodontic regeneration OR regenerative endodontics OR pulp revascularization OR revasculari* OR ‘traumatized immature teeth’. Only peer-reviewed studies with a study size of at least 20 cases followed up for 24 months were included. Eligibility assessment was performed independently in a blinded manner by three reviewers and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Subgroup analyses were performed on three clinical outcomes: survival, success, and continued root development.Results: Seven full texts out of 1359 citations were included and conventional content analysis was performed. Most of the identified citations were case reports and case series.Conclusions: In the present systematic review, the qualitative analysis revealed that both regenerative and apexification techniques had equal rates of success and survival and proved to be effective in the treatment of immature necrotic permanent teeth. Endodontic regenerative techniques appear to be superior to apexification techniques in terms of stimulation of root maturation, i.e. root wall thickening and root lengthening. Knowledge gaps were identified regarding the treatment and follow-up protocols for both techniques.

Aim: This prospective cohort study evaluates clinical and radiographical outcomes of endodontic pulp revitalization (PR) of traumatized necrotic incisors.Methodology: Pulp revitalization was performed in 75 traumatized necrotic immature incisors from 71 patients. The radiographic outcome measures were continued root formation (width and length), root resorption, apex closure, periapical index, and root development stage. The clinical outcome measures were percussion pain, palpation pain, pathological tooth mobility, swelling, sinus tract, ankylosis, crown discolouration, response to pulp sensitivity test, and subjective pain. Treatment outcomes were categorized as a success based on the absence of clinical symptoms and when radiographic evidence was present for apical healing and continued root development. The performed statistical tests were repeated measures anova, pairwise comparisons of interactions (t‐test), McNemar's test, and linear regression model.Results: In 45 of 75 teeth (60%), PR was successful with the resolution of clinical and radiographic signs and continued root development. PR failed due to the absence of bleeding (n = 19) and persistent infection (n = 11). PR showed statistically significant increases in root length (11%), and dentinal wall thickness (30%), root maturation (pre‐operative 3.38 [CI 1.88; 4.88]; post‐operative 4.04, [CI 2.56; 5.52]) apical closure (71.4%), healing of pre‐operative apical periodontitis (100%), and healing of pre‐operative inflammatory root resorptions (100%). Three predictive variables for continued root maturation were identified – root development stage at entry (p = .0001, β 0.649), [CI 0.431; 0.867], trauma to the soft tissues (p = .026, β −0.012), [CI −0.0225; −0.015], and pre‐operative dentinal wall thickness (p = .009, β −0.001); [CI −0.001; 0.0001].Conclusions: Our findings indicate that PR provides satisfactory clinical and radiographical outcomes in traumatized necrotic incisors. The failed cases were related to lack of bleeding and persistent infections, indicating that new techniques are needed to improve the predictability of PR.