Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40641616›Full record

ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research

Decoding success: A five-year retrospective study of dental Implant survival.

Jaideep Mahendra, Uma Subbiah, Pavithra GopalaKrishnan, K Karunanidhi, Sathish Rajendran, Saranya Mohan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jaideep MahendraDepartment of Periodontics, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Uma SubbiahDepartment of Periodontics, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Pavithra GopalaKrishnanDepartment of Periodontics, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
K KarunanidhiDepartment of Research, Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sathish RajendranDepartment of Periodontics, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Saranya MohanDepartment of Periodontics, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Dental implants are the preferred option for replacing missing teeth, offering aesthetic and functional benefits. However, factors such as systemic health, smoking, and prosthetic design can influence implant survival. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of clinical, systemic, and prosthetic factors on the survival of dental implants over five years. Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 143 patients who received 161 dental implants between 2016 and 2018, each followed for a minimum of five years. Clinical parameters, systemic conditions and prosthetic factors were evaluated. Radiographic analysis was performed to measure crestal bone loss. Statistical analysis, including multiple regression, was conducted to assess the factors influencing implant survival. Results: The overall implant survival rate was 92.5 %. Factors significantly associated with implant survival included gender (female patients had a higher survival rate, p = 0.01), smoking status (non-smokers had a higher survival rate, p = 0.04), and the absence of parafunctional habits (p = 0.02). Systemic conditions such as diabetes and vitamin D deficiency were also associated with less implant survival rate (p < 0.05). Implant-related parameters, including less crestal bone loss and implant placement protocol type IV (delayed placement) demonstrated statistically significant association with high implant survival. Multiple regression analysis confirmed that females and patients without systemic conditions were significantly more likely to experience implant success. Conclusion: Age, systemic health conditions, smoking status, and prosthetic design significantly influence implant survival. A comprehensive evaluation of these factors is crucial for improving clinical outcomes and optimizing implant success rates.

Indexed as

Bone lossDental implantsOsseointegrationPeri-implantitisRisk factorsSystemic diseases

Identifiers

PMID40641616
PMCPMC12241379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.