Study shows long-term benefits of saving ‘hopeless’ teeth
The approach works, costs less and offers patients a better experience.
Saving teeth with severe bone loss through periodontal regeneration offers benefits equal to, if not greater than, replacing them with dental implants or bridges, according to a study presented at EuroPerio11 in Vienna.
The study followed patients for 20 years, comparing those who underwent advanced regenerative procedures to keep a tooth, with those who had the same tooth extracted and replaced with either an implant or a fixed bridge. The findings were clear: saving the tooth can work just as well, costs less in the long term, and may offer a better experience for some patients.
“The idea that a tooth with severe loss of bone must always be removed isn’t necessarily true,” said Dr Simone Cortellini, of KU Leuven in Belgium, and one of the lead investigators. “This study shows that regeneration is a powerful option that can give patients many more years with their own teeth.”
In cases of severe gum disease, the tissues that support the tooth, including the bone, can deteriorate, sometimes all the way down to the root tip. Traditionally, these teeth are considered “hopeless” and often removed. But periodontal regeneration uses surgical techniques and materials to rebuild lost bone and tissue, potentially saving the tooth.
“We wanted to push the boundaries of what’s considered ‘hopeless,'” said Dr Cortellini. “Our goal was to show that, in the right patients, even teeth with very advanced damage can be successfully treated and kept.”
He added: “Replacing a tooth is not necessarily better than saving it. In both cases, there’s a chance of problems over time, especially in patients with a history of gum disease. But if we can save the tooth, we delay extraction for many years and that’s a win for patients and for dental care systems.”
Regenerative procedures are not only less expensive upfront, but this study also showed that over 20 years, they still cost significantly less than implants or bridges, largely because saved teeth often require fewer long-term repairs. “Even after two decades, periodontal regeneration still came out as more cost-effective,” noted Cortellini.