ArticleBMC oral health2026
Intentional replantation as an alternative treatment: survival analysis and key prognostic indicators.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A proposed clinical framework for intentional tooth replantation based on healing dynamics: case series.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of intentional replantation (IR), an alternative endodontic treatment option when conventional and surgical approaches are not feasible, and to identify key prognostic indicators influencing tooth survival.
methodsA total of 55 teeth from 47 patients (36 females, 19 males) treated with IR were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and radiographic data were collected over a mean follow-up period of 25.9 ± 18.7 months. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with Log-rank tests, Fisher’s Exact test, and Cox regression were used to assess survival time, categorical associations, and independent prognostic factors including gender, percussion and palpation sensitivity, periapical lesion status, and splint type.
resultsThe overall survival rate was 87.3% (48/55 teeth). The presence of preoperative periapical lesions significantly reduced survival (p = 0.001), while teeth stabilized with fiber-reinforced splints exhibited significantly better outcomes than those with rigid wire-composite splints (p = 0.003). Both factors remained independently associated with survival in Cox regression analysis.
conclusionsIR may represent a viable alternative option in selected cases, with splint type and preoperative periapical lesions emerging as factors associated with survival; however, findings should be interpreted considering the retrospective design and limited number of failure events.
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.