ArticleJournal of periodontology2026
Predictability of a dental implant prognosis system: A retrospective study.
Article in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the predictability of the dental implant prognosis system proposed by Kwok et al. in 2023 by assessing implant survival rates across different initial prognosis categories over a 5-year period.
methodsData were retrospectively collected from patients who received at least one dental implant from 2013-2022 at a single university-affiliated dental center. Eligible participants received baseline examinations at the time of implant-supported prosthesis delivery, with follow-up examinations at least 12 months after. Implants were categorized into favorable, questionable, unfavorable, and hopeless, based upon the prognosis categories proposed by Kwok et al. in 2023. Recorded measurements included: age, sex, follow-up duration, initial and latest implant prognoses, supportive care, history of grade C periodontitis, smoking, diabetes, and the use of intravenous bone sparing agents. Descriptive analysis was employed for data interpretation.
resultsThis study included 651 implants placed in 291 patients. Implants initially classified as having a favorable prognosis exhibited excellent long-term survivability, while those deemed unfavorable at baseline showed the greatest likelihood of deteriorating to a hopeless prognosis. At the latest follow-up, survival rates for implants initially categorized as favorable, questionable, and unfavorable were 100%, 93.5%, and 33.3%, respectively. Cox regression analysis identified initial prognosis, uncontrolled diabetes, and a history of grade C periodontitis as statistically significant risk factors for implant failure, with hazard ratios of 9.70, 35.14, and 66.48, respectively.
conclusionsThe dental implant prognosis system proposed by Kwok et al. is a reliable tool in assessing implant survivability within 5 years. Future research should investigate its long-term performance and the relationship between various influencing factors and implant prognosis.
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.