ArticleCureus2026
Root Canal Therapy Versus Single-Tooth Dental Implants for Compromised Teeth: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelecting between root canal therapy (RCT) and extraction followed by dental implant placement for a compromised tooth remains clinically challenging. Treatment decisions should consider survival, complications, treatment burden, cost, and patient satisfaction rather than survival alone.
objectiveTo compare treatment survival, clinical and radiographic success, complications, treatment visits, duration, direct cost, and patient satisfaction between RCT-restored teeth and single implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study included 100 patients, comprising 50 patients treated with RCT, followed by definitive restoration, and 50 patients treated with extraction, followed by single implant-supported crown rehabilitation, each with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Demographic, clinical, radiographic, complication-related, economic, and patient-satisfaction data were evaluated. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test, continuous variables using the independent-samples t-test, and the ordinal satisfaction score using the Mann-Whitney U test. Effect estimates are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsTreatment survival was 100% following RCT and 96% following implant treatment (risk difference: 4.0%, 95% CI: -3.7 to 13.5; p = 0.495). Clinical and radiographic success did not differ significantly. Biological complications were less frequent after RCT than after implant treatment (4% versus 20%; risk difference: -16.0%, 95% CI: -29.4 to -3.1; Fisher's exact test, p = 0.028). RCT was associated with fewer visits (mean difference: -2.12, 95% CI: -2.47 to -1.77), a shorter treatment duration (-87.10 days, 95% CI: -96.57 to -77.63), and a lower direct cost (-INR: 29,966, 95% CI: -32,203 to -27,729); all p < 0.001. Documented patient satisfaction scores were higher in the RCT group than in the implant group (median: 5 (IQR: 4-5) versus 4 (IQR: 4-5); p = 0.012, Mann-Whitney U test).
conclusionsBoth treatments demonstrated favorable short- to intermediate-term outcomes. In this retrospective cohort, RCT was associated with fewer biological complications, lower treatment burden and cost, and higher satisfaction. Because treatment was not randomized, these associations may partly reflect treatment-selection differences, and natural-tooth preservation should be considered when a compromised tooth remains predictably restorable.
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.