Background: Tooth autotransplantation is defined as the surgical repositioning of an autogenous tooth in another surgical site within the same individual. Aim: The aim of this research was to analyze the outcome of tooth transplantation using immature donor teeth compared with closed apex teeth and to compare differences between donor tooth positions on the arch. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed in different databases, including the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Central (CENTRAL), and the digital library of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC University) from 1978 to March 2021. Studies were selected when they fulfilled the following criteria: only human prospective clinical studies, minimum sample size of 10 patients, minimum follow-up of 1 year, studies reporting or with at least deducible data on survival rates, immediate tooth autotransplantation with completed or incomplete root formation, and publications in the English language. A meta-analysis of random effects was developed to estimate the global effect measure of the survival rate, success rate, and root resorption involving the total sample, as well as open- and closed-apex groups. Results: Twenty-four articles were eligible for analysis. The Cohen’s kappa corresponding to this review was 0.87, and the risk assessment was considered low–moderate for the included studies. Overall survival and success rates were 95.9% and 89.4%, respectively, with a mean follow-up of 4 years and an overall mean age of 25.2 ± 12.3 years. Closed apex teeth showed a survival rate of 3.9% lower than that of open apex teeth. Higher complication rates were found for both inflammatory external root resorption and replacement root resorption in the closed-apex group, without reaching statistical significance. Conclusions: Tooth autotransplantation is a viable treatment alternative, regardless of the apical condition, with high survival and success rates after a mean follow-up of 4 years. Open-apex donor teeth could be considered the gold-standard option, showing lower complication rates when compared to closed-apex donor teeth. Future randomized controlled clinical studies are needed to examine the long-term prognosis of this technique.

(1) Background: Dynamic guided surgery is a computer-guided freehand technology that allows highly accurate procedures to be carried out in real time through motion-tracking instruments. The aim of this research was to compare the accuracy between dynamic guided surgery (DGS) and alternative implant guidance methods, namely, static guided surgery (SGS) and freehand (FH). (2) Methods: Searches were conducted in the Cochrane and Medline databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective case series and to answer the following focused question: “What implant guidance tool is more accurate and secure with regard to implant placement surgery?” The implant deviation coefficient was calculated for four different parameters: coronal and apical horizontal, angular, and vertical deviations. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of 0.05 following application of the eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Twenty-five publications were included in this systematic review. The results show a non-significant weighted mean difference (WMD) between the DGS and the SGS in all of the assessed parameters: coronal (n = 4 WMD = 0.02 mm; p = 0.903), angular (n = 4 WMD = −0.62°; p = 0.085), and apical (n = 3 WMD = 0.08 mm; p = 0.401). In terms of vertical deviation, not enough data were available for a meta-analysis. However, no significant differences were found among the techniques (p = 0.820). The WMD between DGS and FH demonstrated significant differences favoring DGS in three parameters as follows: coronal (n = 3 WMD = −0.66 mm; p =< 0.001), angular (n = 3 WMD = −3.52°; p < 0.001), and apical (n = 2 WMD = −0.73 mm; p =< 0.001). No WMD was observed regarding the vertical deviation analysis, but significant differences were seen among the different techniques (p = 0.038). (4) Conclusions: DGS is a valid alternative treatment achieving similar accuracy to SGS. DGS is also more accurate, secure, and precise than the FH method when transferring the presurgical virtual implant plan to the patient.