ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2020
Implant survival and risk factor analysis in regenerated bone: results from a 5-year retrospective study.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tobacco Smoking and Smoke-Free Products as Risk Factors for Dental Implants: A Systematic Review.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Pooled it
- New bone formation of biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitute material: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Multivariate Analysis of the Survival Rates and Risk Factors of One-Piece Zirconia Implants Supporting Single Crowns or Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Follow-Up Periods of up to 8 Years.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Rehabilitation of a Maxillary Defect and Missing Teeth in the Esthetic Zone With a Long-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of tapered-straight-tapered dental implants: a retrospective analysis.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2025Article
- Biofunctionalization of Collagen Barrier Membranes with Bone-Conditioned Medium, as a Natural Source of Growth Factors, Enhances Osteoblastic Cell Behavior.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- The Effects of Smoking on Dental Implant Failure: A Current Literature Update.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- The cumulative survival rate of dental implants with micro-threads: a long-term retrospective study.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2024Article
- Biocompatibility and histological responses of eggshell membrane for dental implant-guided bone regeneration.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Usefulness of Magnetic Mallet in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aims of this study were to evaluate the 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) of implants placed with guided bone regeneration (GBR) compared to implants placed in native bone, and to identify factors contributing to implant failure in regenerated bone.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 240 patients who had implant placement either with a GBR procedure (regenerated bone group) or with pristine bone (native bone group). Data on demographic features (age, sex, smoking, and medical history), location of the implant, implant-specific features, and grafting procedures and materials were collected. The 5-year CSRs in both groups were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for implant failure were analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model.
resultsIn total, 264 implants in the native bone group and 133 implants in the regenerated bone group were analyzed. The 5-year CSRs were 96.4% in the regenerated bone group and 97.5% in the native bone group, which was not a significant difference. The multivariable analysis confirmed that bone status was not an independent risk factor for implant failure. However, smoking significantly increased the failure rate (hazard ratio, 10.7;
conclusionsThe 5-year CSR of implants placed in regenerated bone using GBR was comparable to that of implants placed in native bone. Smoking significantly increased the risk of implant failure in both groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.