As far as power, torque curve, and all that goes, whether the valves get opened by pushrods or by overhead cams really doesn't matter, that's all the cam profile, the head breathing ability (flow), and so on.
Since overhead cams actuate the valves directly (or by a finger-follower), the amount of mass being moved by the cam is very small- essentially just the mass of the valve, the spring, and the finger follower. With a pushrod engine, the cam moves the mass of a lifter, a pushrod, a rocker arm, and also the valve.
In the old days, that meant that OHC could spin much, much faster before the valves started to 'float,' with the springs unable to move all that mass back the other way fast enough.
Today, modern valve spring designs and modern pushrod/rocker arm materials, and so on have made it so that OHC really only becomes an advantage at 8000+ RPM. They spent a lot of money doing this, but even before NASCAR engines went to roller lifters this year, they proved that they could operate reliably at 10,000 RPM using pushrods. 7000 RPM for a street pushrod engine is no big thing, so obviously going OHC only becomes a real advantage at higher RPM than most street engines ever need to spin.
Also, its easier to actuate 4 valves per cylinder with OHC than it is with cam-in-block, so small-bore engines that can't fit big valves benefit some from that. There are 4-valve pushrod engines out there- the Cummins ISB diesel for example (aka the "24 Valve" diesel in the Ram).
Short story: it *looked* for a while like OHC was going to be the future, and that's about the time Ford designed their Modular engine family in the early 90s. Then materials and cylinder head design sorta made it moot by the time Chrysler designed the Hemi in the early 2000s. Plus pushrod engines are much more compact. Ford stuck with OHC because there's not enough "down-side" to go back to pushrods now that they have the basic architecture.
Chrysler went DOHC with the Pentastar because its a small-bore engine that needs the 4 valves.