Yes, for the years immediately after the war.
As historians, one of the most powerful data analysis tools we have is Google Ngram, a fascinating byproduct of the Google Books mass-scanning project. While Google Books can't (because of copyright) share every book it has scanned, what it can do is allow us to search the corpus of all scanned books for words devoid of context.
In short, we can see how often a term shows up in all English-language books during a set timeframe. We can also narrow our search to books published only in the United States. There are some limits: Ngram's dataset stops at 2008, for example. But [simply comparing "Pearl Harbor" to "September 11" produces some illuminating results](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pearl+Harbor%2C(September+11%29%2C%5B9+%2F+11%5D&year_start=1930&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CPearl%20Harbor%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28September%2011%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%5B9%20/%2011%5D%3B%2Cc0).
Edit: Thanks to /u/The_Keto_Warrior for solving the problem I was having with "9/11"; the Ngram has been updated.
The trends are apparent: An enormous spike (as expected) during the wartime years for the term "Pearl Harbor." Even in 1946 and 1947, "Pearl Harbor" was more commonly referenced than "September 11" was even in 2001. There's a brief lull in 1948, then another surge from 1949 through the mid-1950s. By 15 years after the event, the number of mentions plateaus, with brief spikes for anniversary years.
The data on "September 11" is still young, but it appears to be following the same trend as "Pearl Harbor" ─ and if I could figure out how to search the numerical term "9/11", we'd probably get even better data.
Pearl Harbor was a cultural touchstone long after the end of World War II. In June 1945, Gen. Henry Arnold, commander of the U.S. Army Air Forces, predicted in Fortune Magazine that the United States would continue to seek a strong Air Force long after the end of the war in order to prevent future Pearl Harbors.
The Ngram spike in 1949 is undoubtedly attributable to American fears following the detonation of the first Soviet atomic bomb. Speaking in Minnesota in 1950, Air Force Lt. Gen. Harold George said the United States faced "a Pearl Harbor of survival." That year, it was feared that the People's Republic of China would launch "a series of Pearl Harbor-style attacks" against Nationalist airfields on Taiwan.
When the United States and Canada spent hundreds of millions of dollars to construct the Distant Early Warning Line of radar stations across the Arctic in the 1950s, it was to prevent a Pearl Harbor-style attack. In the 1960s, with guided missiles the new fear, the United States spent hundreds of millions of dollars more on the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System of radars, the MIDAS infrared satellites and subsequent DSP satellites ─ all to prevent a "Pearl Harbor-style attack."
On the 41st anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, President Ronald Reagan said the new MX missile program would be a strategic deterrent that would prevent another Pearl Harbor. The U.S. House voted it down anyway. Four years later, when the U.S. Navy proposed a base-building program to disperse its fleet and avoid the potential for another Pearl Harbor, the U.S. House said no again.
If you're waiting for 9/11 to fade into irrelevance, you're going to be waiting a long time. It stayed a touchstone for 50 years, right up until the events of Sept. 11 surpassed it. There's even an eerie 1998 column by New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal that in hindsight almost seems to be a passing of the torch. Writing against President Bill Clinton's attempts at rapprochement with Iran, Rosenthal said:
"I wonder -- by now is [Clinton] even capable of seeing where American principle lies? After all, it does not show on the balance sheet -- that is, not until some new Pearl Harbor, or invasion of Kuwait, or some second explosion at the World Trade Center, something like that."