According to the patient record database from 2010 to 2020, in the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, there were just 40 cases that received a tooth autotransplantation (AT). The dentist plays a significant role in offering patients appropriate and alternative treatments. The small number of AT cases may come from a dentist who does not offer AT to patients as one of the options. Factors influencing their decision-making should be identified, hence there is a paucity of relevant research. The objective of this pilot study is to primarily survey the dentist’s reasons and trends in deciding to offer an AT option to the patient for replacing the single edentulous area. A cross-sectional online questionnaire via Google Form was divided into 6 sections: 1) demographic characteristics, 2) dentist’s decision with two case scenarios about dental substitution, 3) background in AT and the types of proposal style of participants, 4) reasoning of decisions, 5) eight facts about AT with choosing a Likert scale of 1-10(strongly disagree to strongly agree), and 6) recommendations and feedback. Descriptive statistics were used to explain the results. 31 practicing dentists working outside the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, answered the survey. The participants comprised 21 females and 10 males, with a mean age of 33.77 ± 9.79 years. Of the participants, 29 general dentists and 2 specialists (board qualification) had a mean of clinical experience of 9.65 ± 10.21 years. When compared with other options, the percentage of dentists who offered an AT as one of the treatment options was found to be only 13% and 12% in both case scenarios, respectively. AT was found to be the least popular treatment option even though it has many advantages. Besides, the reasons why dentists would or would not propose AT to patients were found and grouped into 3 main factors: dentist-related factors (i.e., knowledge of AT, experience and confidence in AT, expertise in AT, and facility of the environment), patient-related factors (i.e., patient’s affordability, patient’s behavior, and patient’s impression of AT), and treatment-related factors (i.e., outcome and procedure of AT). From the results, the data showed a distribution, and this questionnaire was satisfactory in content validity index (CVI = 0.972) and reliability assessment (Cronbach alpha values = 0.822). Finally, this outcome can be used to determine factors that impact the dentist’s decision about AT proposal and the reasons why the dentist would propose or not propose AT. Additionally, they can be shown in the further questionnaire as choices of selection.