ArticleJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Survival and Risk Factors of Implants Placed in Sites of Previous Failures-A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of clinical 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the survival rates of dental implants placed in previously failed sites and identify systemic, site-specific and implant-related factors associated with implant loss.
methodsThis study included all dental implants (177,410 implants in 59,238 patients) placed between 2014 and 2023 within a nationwide dental network. Implant sequence (first, second, third or subsequent placement at the same site) was identified. Implant survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. The Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox proportional hazards model was used in a multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of failure. Separate Andersen-Gill Cox models were fitted for early and late failures.
resultsOverall implant survival was 97.5% after a mean follow-up of 4.61 ± 2.72 years. Survival declined progressively with repeated placement, from 97.6% (169,990/174,187) for first implants to 92.2% (2748/2980) for second implants and 88.5% (215/243) for third or subsequent implants (p < 0.001). The hazard of failure was 4.6 times higher for second implants (HR 4.60; 95% CI, 3.98-5.32; p < 0.001) and 5.7 times higher for third or later implants (HR 5.71; 95% CI, 3.68-8.87; p < 0.001), compared to the first implants. Independent predictors of failure included smoking, male sex, penicillin allergy, narrow diameter and maxillary placement. The association between implant sequence and failure differed by time after implantation. The hazard of early failure was 6.80 times higher for second implants (95% CI, 5.78-8.00; p < 0.001) and 9.27 times higher for third or later implants (95% CI, 5.57-15.45; p < 0.001), compared to the first implants. The hazard of late failure was 1.93 times higher for second implants (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; p < 0.001) and 2.63 times higher for third or later implants (HR 2.63; 95% CI, 1.24-5.58; p = 0.011), compared to the first implants.
conclusionReimplantation showed relatively favourable survival; however, failure risk increased with each successive implant placed at the same site, particularly early failures. Additionally, smoking, male sex, penicillin allergy, short and narrow implants and maxillary location were independent predictors of failure.
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.