SynthesisActa odontologica Scandinavica2025
Comparative outcomes of endodontically treated teeth versus dental implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stress distribution in different tooth-implant supported mandibular prostheses rehabilitating unilateral free-end saddle: a biomechanical comparative finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Management of Failed Apexification Associated with Internal Root Resorption and Apical Calcification: A 56-Month Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Bioactive Materials and Novel Techniques in Endodontics: Translational Advances for Clinical Practice.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparison of implant success versus endodontically treated teeth: A retrospective cohort study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Comparison of endodontic treatment success and implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation success rates: A prospective study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the clinical and patient-related outcomes of root canal therapy (RCT) and dental implants (DIs) in managing severe tooth damage, supporting evidence-based treatment decisions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adult patients treated with either RCT or DIs were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias. Due to significant heterogeneity among studies, meta-analysis was not feasible, and findings were synthesised qualitatively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024584113.
resultsOut of 1,876 initial records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria: 7 cohort studies, 4 case-control studies, and 1 randomised controlled trial. Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Both RCT and DIs demonstrated high survival rates, with RCT slightly outperforming DIs in terms of success. Failure rates ranged from 0.7% to 12.0%, with no significant differences between treatments. DIs were associated with a higher frequency of postoperative interventions and complications. Patient-reported outcomes such as pain, satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL) were comparable across both modalities.
conclusionRCT and DIs both offer viable and effective solutions for restoring severely damaged teeth, with high survival and success rates and low failure rates. Both treatments were also associated with favourable patient-reported outcomes, including minimal pain, high satisfaction, and improved QoL. The decision between treatments should consider clinical factors, patient preferences, cost, accessibility, potential complications, and patient-centred outcomes. Shared decision-making is essential for optimal patient care.
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.