Influence of mobility on the long‐term risk of tooth extraction/loss in periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess whether tooth mobility (TM) increases the risk of tooth extraction/loss. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023485425). The focused PECO questions were as follows: (1) “In patients with periodontitis, undergoing periodontal treatment, are teeth affected by mobility at higher risk of being extracted/lost compared to non‐mobile teeth, with a minimum follow‐up of 10 years?” and (2) “In these patients, does varying degrees of tooth mobility increase the risk of tooth extraction/loss, with a minimum follow‐up of 10 years?”. Results were reported according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify longitudinal studies. The different assessments of tooth mobility were pooled into three groups: TM0: Undetectable tooth mobility, TM1: Horizontal/Mesio‐distal mobility ≤1 mm, TM2: Horizontal/Mesio‐distal mobility >1 mm or vertical tooth mobility. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. Various meta‐analyses were conducted, including subgroup analyses considering different follow‐up lengths and the timing of TM assessment, along with sensitivity analyses. A trial sequential analysis was also performed. Eleven studies were included (1883 patients). The mean follow‐up range was 10–25 years. The weighted total of included teeth, based on the sample size, was 18 918, with a total of 1604 (8.47%) extracted/lost teeth. The overall rate of tooth extraction/loss increased with increasing mobility: TM0 was associated with a 5.85% rate (866/14822), TM1 with the 11.8% (384/3255), TM2 with the 40.3% (339/841). Mobile teeth (TM1/TM2) were at an increased risk for tooth extraction/loss, compared to TM0 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 1.88–4.32]; p < .00001). TM1 had a higher risk than TM0 (HR: 1.96; [95% CI 1.09–3.53]; p < .00001). TM2 had a higher risk than TM1 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 2.19–3.70]; p < .00001) and TM0 (HR: 7.12; [95% CI 3.27–15.51]; p < .00001). The results of the tests for subgroup differences were not significant. Sensitivity meta‐analyses yielded consistent results with other meta‐analyses. Within the limits of the quality of the studies included in the meta‐analyses, mobile teeth were at higher risk of being extracted/lost in the long‐term and higher degrees of TM significantly influenced clinicians‘ decision to extract a tooth. However, most teeth can be retained in the long‐term and thus TM should not be considered a reason for extraction or a risk factor for tooth loss, regardless of the degree of TM.