Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1872  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 117-119  

Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, JKK Nataraja Dental College, Komarapalayam, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission02-May-2013
Date of Decision04-May-2013
Date of Acceptance04-May-2013
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2013

Correspondence Address:
Kaneesh Karthik
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, JKK Nataraja Dental College, Komarapalayam, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.113310

Rights and Permissions

Dental Implants have become the standard care of rehabilitation of missing teeth. This article intends to review the success criteria for implants from 1979 till date. Earlier days implant success was evaluated by immobility and peri-implant radiolucency. But currently, the width of the attached gingiva, co-existing medical conditions, smoking, and width of the implant also play a role in evaluating implant success. Genetic and immunological markers have also been identified.

Keywords: Attached gingival, genetic markers, implant success, mobility, peri-implant radiolucency

How to cite this article:
Karthik K, Sivakumar, Sivaraj, Thangaswamy V. Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2013;5, Suppl S1:117-9

How to cite this URL:
Karthik K, Sivakumar, Sivaraj, Thangaswamy V. Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2013 [cited 2022 Aug 16];5, Suppl S1:117-9. Available from:

A revolution in the research and technology of implants during the last two decades has made the replacement of missing teeth with endosseous implants the standard care and an implant supported prosthesis as the first line of treatment and long lasting rehabilitation. [1]

It all started when Professor Branemark used titanium chambers to investigate the anatomy and physiology of tissue injury. He observed that the titanium chambers were firmly attached to the bone and they could not be removed from the bone once it healed. After this chance observation, Branemark developed a new concept of osseointegration which led to dental implants. The use of titanium based implants in humans begun in 1965.

This article intends to review the past and the present concepts to evaluate the long-term success of a dental implant. Considerations are given to evaluating the following criteria durability, bone loss, gingival health, pocket depth, effect on adjacent teeth, function, esthetics, presence of infection, discomfort, parasthesia or anesthesia, intrusion on the mandibular canal, patient's emotional and psychological attitude and satisfaction. [2]

   Earlier Concepts Top

Schnitman and schulman, [3] 1979:

  1. Mobility less than 1 mm in any direction.
  2. Radilogically observed radilucency graded but no success criterion defined.
  3. Bone loss no greater than one third of the vertical height of the bone.
  4. Gingival inflammation amenable to treatment, absence of symptoms and infection, absence of damage to adjacent teeth, absence of parasthesia and anesthesia or violation of the mandibular canal, maxillary sinus or floor of the nasal passage.
  5. Functional service for 5 years in 75% of patients.
Cranin et al.[4] 1982:

  1. In place 60 months or more.
  2. Lack of significant evidence of cervical saucerisation on radiographs.
  3. Freedom from hemorrhage according to Muhleman's index.
  4. Lack of mobility.
  5. Absence of pain or percussive tenderness.
  6. No pericervical granulomatosis or gingival hyperplasia.
  7. No evidence of a widening peri-implant space on radiograph.
McKinney et al.[5] 1984:

  • Subjective criteria
    1. Adequate function
    2. Absence of discomfort
    3. Patient belief that esthetics and emotional and psychological attitudes are improved.
  • Objective criteria
    1. Good occlusal balance and vertical dimension.
    2. Bone loss no greater than one third of the vertical height of the implant, absence of symptoms, and functionally stable after 5 years.
    3. Gingival inflammation vulnerable to treatment.
    4. Mobility of less than 1 mm buccolingually, mesiodistally, and vertically.
    5. Absence of symptoms and infection associated with the dental implant.
    6. Absence of damage to adjacent tooth or teeth and their supporting structures.
    7. Absence of parasthesia or violation of mandibular canal, maxillary sinus, or floor of nasal passage.
    8. Healthy collagenous tissue without polymorphonuclear infiltration.
  • Success crieterion
    1. Provides functional service for 5 years in 75% of implant patients.
Possible criteria for success


A two point scale such as mobile or immobile implant can be used. An additional test is to tap the implant with an instrument. If the tap elicits a solid ring there is no mobility but if the sound is dull, the implant is not osseointegrated and surrounded by fribrous tissue.

Peri-implant radiolucency

An implant with radiolucency around it should not be judged as a success.

Marginal bone loss

Adell et al.[6] determined that the mean bone loss for Branemark Osseointegrated implants was 1.5 mm for the first year and followed by mean bone loss of 0.1 mm/year.

Mean bone loss of 0.2 mm per was accepted as a criterion for success. [2]

Albrektsson et al. [7] 1986

  1. Individual unattached implant that is immobile when tested clinically
  2. Radiography that does not demonstrate evidence of peri-implant radiolucency
  3. Bone loss that is less than 0.2 mm annually after the implant's first year of service
  4. No persistent pain, discomfort or infection
  5. By these criteria, a success rate of 85% at the end of a 5 year observation period and 80% at the end of a 10 year period are minimum levels for success.

   Present Concepts Top

Though the earlier concepts form the basis of evaluation of implant success, recently lots of other factors have been found to play a vital role in long-term success of an implant.

Width of the attached gingiva

Implants failed if the width of the attached gingival is ≤ 2 mm. Other studies have shown that a thin or absent masticatory gingival was associated with bleeding on probing and a significantly greater mean loss of alveolar bone. [8]


Silk sutures were less likely to support bacterial colonization than other suture materials which minimizes the chance of odontogenic infections. [9] Use of polyglactin 910 was associated with a higher incidence of early loss of implants.

   Associated Medical Conditions Top

Studies have found that early loss of implants were common among patients with a co-existing medical conditions, but not significantly so. Despite the suggestion that type 2 diabetes has a possible adverse effect on survival of implants, [10] there is no conclusive evidence. [1]


Smoking may have an adverse effect on the implant survival and success. [10],[11] There is evidence to suggest that smoking may have a dose related effect on osseointegration. [12]

   Width of the Implant Top

A recent study described the largest early loss of implants with short and narrow implants. [13] One possible explanation is that narrow and short implants are usually placed in areas in which there is limited space or insufficient volume of bone. [1]

Genetic and immunological markers

A study evaluated diagnostic markers to predict titanium implant failure. TNF-α and IL-1β release on titanium stimulation were significantly higher among patients with implant loss. [14]

Implant success in radiated mandibles and fibula flap

The success of implants in fibula grafts was 89.2% and success in irradiated mandibles was 87.18% with the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. [15],[16]

   Discussion Top

Earlier, the evaluation of implant success revolved around the mobility, peri-implant radiolucency, marginal bone loss and absence of infection or discomfort to the patient.

A study even proposed an Implant Quotient to assess the long-term success of the implant. Implant Quotient was derived by relating positive and negative factors of implant success. [17] Currently, implant success is evaluated by a lot of factors along with the earlier ones.

The width of the attached gingival, co-existing medical conditions, smoking, width of the implant, suture material used, all play an important role in implant success. Even genetic and immunological factors like TNF-α and IL-1β have been identified as markers for implant success.

   Conclusion Top

The basic criteria for implant success are immobility, absence of peri-implant radiolucency, adequate width of the attached gingiva, absence of infection. A wider implant has long-term success than a narrow implant. Co-existing medical conditions and smoking also play an important role in evaluating the success of an implant.

   References Top

1.Baqain ZH, Moqbel WY, Sawair FA. Early dental implant failure: Risk factors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:239-43.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:567-72.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Schnitman PA, Shulman LB. Recommendations of the consensus development conference on dental implants. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98:373-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.Cranin AN, Silverbrand H, Sher J, Salter N. The requirements and clinical performance of dental implants. In: Smith DC, Williams DF, editors. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials. Vol. 4. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1982. p. 198.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.McKinney R, Koth DL, St and k DE. Clinical standards for dental implants. In: Clark JW, editor. Clinical Dentistry. Harperstown: Harper and Row; 1984. p. 1-11.  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.  Back to cited text no. 6
7.Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 7
8.Bouri A Jr, Bissada N, Al-Zahrani MS, Faddoul F, Nouneh I. Width of keratinized gingiva and the health status of the supporting tissues around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:323-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
9.Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, Amasio M, Gallesio C, Allizond V, et al. Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1503-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
10.Klokkevold PR, Han TJ. How do smoking, diabetes, and periodontitis affect outcomes of implant treatment? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22 Suppl 1:173-202.  Back to cited text no. 10
11.Koldsland OC, Scheie AA, Aass AM. Prevalence of implant loss and the influence of associated factors. J Periodontol 2009;80:1069-75.  Back to cited text no. 11
12.Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34:610-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
13.Olate S, Lyrio MC, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW. Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:414-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
14.Jacobi-Gresser E, Huesker K, Schütt S. Genetic and immunological markers predict titanium implant failure: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:537-43.  Back to cited text no. 14
15.Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, et al. Brånemark Novum: A new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 1999;1:2-16.  Back to cited text no. 15
16.Branemark PI, Grondahl K, Worthington P. Osseointegration and Autogenous Onlay Bone Grafts: Recostruction of the Edentulous Atro-phic Maxilla. Illinois: Quintessence; 2001. p. 65-92.  Back to cited text no. 16
17.Linkow LI, Rinaldi AW, Weiss WW Jr, Smith GH. Factors influencing long-term implant success. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:64-73.  Back to cited text no. 17

This article has been cited by
1 Review—A Conceptual Analysis on Ceramic Materials Used for Dental Practices: Manufacturing Techniques and Microstructure
Sumanth Ratna Kandavalli, Sunanda Ratna Kandavalli, Rajesh S. Ruban, Chih Hung Lo, Ravinder Kumar, Abou Bakr Elshalakany, Catalin I. Pruncu
ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology. 2022; 11(5): 053005
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Effect of an “Autogenous Leukocyte Platelet-Rich Fibrin Tooth Graft” Combination around Immediately Placed Implants in Periodontally Compromised Sites: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Walid ElAmrousy, Dalia Rasheed Issa, Andrea Scribante
International Journal of Dentistry. 2022; 2022: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Periodontal, Functional, and Esthetic Integration of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue: WHS Concept
Aleksandr Lysov, Andre P. Saadoun
Journal of Oral Implantology. 2022; 48(1): S1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Bioactive Coatings in Dentistry—What Is the Future?
Michal Sarul, Elie Amm
Coatings. 2022; 12(6): 842
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Modification of implant surfaces to stimulate mesenchymal cell activation
Ilma Robo, Saimir Heta, Dhimitri Papakozma, Vera Ostreni
Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 2022; 46(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Fractal Dimension as a Tool for Assessment of Dental Implant Stability—A Scoping Review
Sukanya Mishra, Manoj Kumar, Lora Mishra, Rinkee Mohanty, Rashmita Nayak, Abhaya Chandra Das, Sambhab Mishra, Saurav Panda, Barbara Lapinska
Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(14): 4051
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Impact of the 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol Concentration and Vitamin D Deficiency Treatment on Changes in the Bone Level at the Implant Site during the Process of Osseointegration: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Jakub Kwiatek, Aleksandra Jaron, Grzegorz Trybek
Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(3): 526
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 The Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration and Biofilm Formation
Stefanie Kligman, Zhi Ren, Chun-Hsi Chung, Michael Angelo Perillo, Yu-Cheng Chang, Hyun Koo, Zhong Zheng, Chenshuang Li
Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(8): 1641
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Outcomes of implants placed after osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of single-arm studies
Mingfu Ye, Wenjun Liu, Shaolong Cheng, Lihui Yan
International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2021; 7(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Comparing success of immediate versus delay loading of implants in fresh sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ebrahim Eini, Hojatollah Yousefimanesh, Alireza Hashemi Ashtiani, Amal Saki-Malehi, Amin Olapour, Fakher Rahim
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Visible Light-Mediated Sustainable Antibacterial Activity and Osteogenic Functionality of Au and Pt Multi-Coated TiO2 Nanotubes
Kyoung-Suk Moon, Young-Bum Park, Ji-Myung Bae, Eun-Joo Choi, Seung-Han Oh
Materials. 2021; 14(20): 5976
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Antibacterial Layer-by-Layer Coatings for Medical Implants
Ane Escobar, Nicolas Muzzio, Sergio Enrique Moya
Pharmaceutics. 2020; 13(1): 16
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Mesoporous titania coatings with carboxylated pores for complexation and slow delivery of strontium for osteogenic induction
Ane Escobar, Nicolás E. Muzzio, Ángel M. Martínez-Villacorta, Ander Abarrategi, Elisa Bindini, Marek Grzelczak, Andrea V. Bordoni, Paula C. Angelomé, Sergio E. Moya
Applied Surface Science. 2020; 510: 145172
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Comparison between immediate vs. delayed lateral expansion technique to augment narrow alveolar ridges for placement of implants - A pilot study
Himanshu Chauhan, Shubha Lakshmi, Jitender Kumar Aurora, Ipshita Potlia, Arpita Komal, Nitin Purohit
Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2020; 10(2): 78
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Visible Light-Enhanced Antibacterial and Osteogenic Functionality of Au and Pt Nanoparticles Deposited on TiO2 Nanotubes
Kyoung-Suk Moon, Eun-Joo Choi, Ji-Myung Bae, Young-Bum Park, Seunghan Oh
Materials. 2020; 13(17): 3721
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
Sriharsha Konuru, Syed Asimuddin, Venkateshwara Reddy, Haranadha Reddy, Sekhar Reddy, Siva Prasada Reddy
Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2019; 8(8): 489
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review
Juan A. V. Palacios,Jaime Jiménez Garcia,João M. M. Caramês,Marc Quirynen,Duarte Nuno da Silva Marques
Clinical Oral Investigations. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Accuracy Assessment of Immediate and Delayed Implant Placements Using CAD/CAM Surgical Guides
Fawaz Alzoubi,Nima Massoomi,Anders Nattestad
Journal of Oral Implantology. 2016; 42(5): 391
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Is the presence of keratinized mucosa associated with periimplant tissue health? A clinical cross-sectional analysis
Catharina Ladwein,Rainer Schmelzeisen,Katja Nelson,Tabea Viktoria Fluegge,Tobias Fretwurst
International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2015; 1(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Tooth Retention through Endodontic Microsurgery or Tooth Replacement Using Single Implants: A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes
Mahmoud Torabinejad,Maria Landaez,Marites Milan,Chun Xiao Sun,Jeffrey Henkin,Aladdin Al-Ardah,Mathew Kattadiyil,Khaled Bahjri,Salem Dehom,Elisa Cortez,Shane N. White
Journal of Endodontics. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 The influence of bone quality on the biomechanical behavior of full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses
Leonardo Perez Faverani,Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão,Gabriel Ramalho-ferreira,Juliana Aparecida Delben,Mayara Barbosa Ferreira,Idelmo Rangel Garcia Júnior,Wirley Gonçalves Assunção
Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2014; 37(1): 164-170
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Effect of 3- and 4-mm Interimplant Distances on the Height of Interimplant Bone Crest
Nicolas Elian,Mitchell Bloom,Richard D. Trushkowsky,Michel M. Dard,Dennis Tarnow
Implant Dentistry. 2014; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Earlier Concepts
   Present Concepts
    Associated Medic...
   Width of the Implant

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded404    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 22    

Recommend this journal