Avulsions and intrusions are the most complicated and controversial displacement injuries of permanent teeth. Clinical guidelines published by authorities such as the American Association of Endodontists, the Royal College of Surgeons of England and the International Association of Dental Traumatology are inconsistent. While a certain amount of inconsistency might be expected, some of these guidelines recommend treatments that are experimental or have not incorporated research information from the past 5 years, and in one case the guidelines incorrectly describe the nature of Hank's balanced salt solution. Recent laboratory studies support previous clinical outcome studies in emphasizing that only for teeth replanted within 5 minutes of avulsion is there a chance of regeneration of the periodontal ligament and normal function. Teeth replanted beyond 5 minutes will take another path, that of repair followed by root resorption, ankylosis and eventual extraction. Dentists should explain these outcomes at the time of the replantation decision. Severe intrusions also have predictable outcomes. Teeth intruded beyond 6 mm cannot regenerate a functional periodontal ligament and so are prone to root resorption and eventual extraction as well. In this situation the decision is one of immediate extraction or repositioning, with the understanding that it is inevitable that the tooth will eventually be extracted. Authoritative clinical guidelines available on the Internet provide the clinician with useful outlines for treatment. However, individual inconsistencies stimulate academic controversies and, in some cases, clinical misdirection.