ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Cost-effectiveness of tooth preservation versus implant for persistent periapical pathosis in mandibular second molars.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPersistent apical periodontitis in mandibular second molars presents a clinical decision between tooth preservation and extraction with implant replacement. Although intentional replantation (IR), surgical endodontic treatment, and implant therapy demonstrate acceptable outcomes, their long-term economic value remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of tooth-preserving strategies versus extraction with implant placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA Markov model simulated 40-year-old patients with persistent apical periodontitis in a mandibular second molar from a United States (US) private payer perspective. Three strategies were compared: IR, surgical endodontic treatment, and extraction with implant placement. The model used 6-month half cycles over 39.3 years with 3% annual discount rate. Transition probabilities were derived from systematic reviews and clinical studies. Costs were obtained from the American Dental Association (ADA) 2022 survey adjusted to 2025 USD. Effectiveness was expressed as retained tooth-years or implant-years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations assessed uncertainty.
resultsIR yielded 16.09 retained tooth-years at USD 2,676. Surgical endodontic treatment provided an additional 0.32 years corresponding to 16.41 tooth-years at an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of USD 4,279.66. Extraction with implant placement achieved 19.08 implant-years at an ICER of USD 580.60. Probabilistic analysis showed IR was cost-effective at lower willingness-to-pay thresholds, whereas implant placement became preferred beyond approximately USD 600.
conclusionIn mandibular second molars with persistent apical periodontitis, IR proved economically favorable in the short-term, while extraction with implant placement offered superior long-term effectiveness at reasonable incremental costs for patients with extended life expectancy.
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.