Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42282297›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2026

Comparison of implant success versus endodontically treated teeth: A retrospective cohort study.

Monika Rawat, Ashish Maheshwari, Soumadip Dey, Himanshu Sharma, Sovendu Jha, Nadira Sultana

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Monika RawatDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SMIH, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Ashish MaheshwariDepartment of Dentistry, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Soumadip DeyDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Awadh Dental College & Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India.
Himanshu SharmaDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Maharishi Markandeshwar Dental College Sciences & Research, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed To Be University), Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India.
Sovendu JhaDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India.
Nadira SultanaDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Choosing between endodontic preservation and implant replacement for compromised teeth poses key clinical challenges for outcomes and costs. Hence, this retrospective cohort study compared 198 implants and 214 endodontically treated teeth at a university hospital (2018- 2020) over five years. Success rates reached 89.3% for endodontically treated teeth and 93.4% for implants (p=0.142), with survival at 94.9% and 96.5% respectively (p=0.423). Complication rates were comparable overall, though types differed between the two modalities. Thus, both treatments offer excellent long-term predictability, supporting endodontic therapy as a viable alternative to implants for suitable teeth.

Indexed as

Dental implantsendodontic treatmentroot canal therapysuccess ratesurvival ratetooth preservation

Identifiers

PMID42282297
PMCPMC13252262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.