Over a 10-year period, around 95% of implants stay in place, but the crown or bridge fitted on top may need repairing or replacing sooner. How the work is followed up therefore counts for as much as how it was placed.
If you are considering an implant, or want an existing implant checked, Noria Health Hub can arrange a full check-up or a second medical opinion in Brussels, with a report within 24 h, coordinate your care where needed across more than 40 medical pathways in 48 h, then, if your medical condition allows, arrange surgery within 7 days.
Implant and crown, two different lifespans
| What is measured | The result |
|---|---|
| Survival of the implant at 5 years, 46 studies | 97.2% |
| Survival of the implant at 10 years | 95.2% |
| Survival of the crown on top at 5 years | 96.3% |
| Survival of the crown on top at 10 years | 89.4% |
| Implant survival at 20 years, meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies | 93.0% |
The gap between 95.2 and 89.4 at 10 years is the most useful figure for a patient. It is not the implant that gives way, it is what is screwed on top. That shifts the question from brand choice to maintenance.
One piece of work deserves quoting for its methodological honesty. A meta-analysis of 18 prospective studies gives 96.4% survival at 10 years in standard analysis, and 93.2% when those lost to follow-up are counted as failures. The prediction interval then goes from 91.5 to 99.4% out to 76.6 to 100%. In people aged 65 and over, survival falls to 91.5%.
Technical complications are not rare accidents. At 5 years, on single crowns, screw loosening affects 8.8% of cases, loss of retention 4.1%, fracture of the cosmetic material 3.5%, and soft tissue complications 7.1%. On implant-supported bridges, 38.7% of patients had at least one complication at 5 years, against 15.7% for a conventional bridge.
Bridge, implant or resin-bonded bridge, benefits and limits
| The solution | Survival at 5 years | Survival at 10 years |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional bridge on tooth abutments | 93.8% | 89.2% |
| Cantilever bridge on tooth abutments | 91.4% | 80.3% |
| Implant-supported bridge | 95.2% | 86.7% |
| Mixed tooth and implant bridge | 95.5% | 77.8% |
| Single crown on an implant | 94.5% | 89.4% |
At 10 years, the conventional bridge and the implant crown are level, at 89%. The difference is therefore not in the survival figure, it is in what has to be sacrificed to get it.
And that sacrifice is measured, as mass of tissue removed. Preparing a tooth for a metal-ceramic crown removes 63 to 72% of the coronal structure on an anterior tooth, and 67.5 to 75.6% on a posterior one. A veneer or a bonded retainer removes 3 to 30%. A 3-unit bridge therefore means 2 healthy teeth cut down by about two thirds of their crown, followed by about 9.5% abutment caries and 10% loss of vitality at 10 years.
One option is very rarely offered and deserves to be known. Across 310 single-wing zirconia resin-bonded bridges, prepared only in the enamel of a single neighbouring tooth, survival at 15 years is 97.3%. To replace a single incisor, that means a result comparable to an implant, with no surgery, no bone to rebuild, no waiting, and touching only the enamel. We are not saying it suits everyone, we are saying that few patients know it exists.
Peri-implantitis, frequency, risk factors and prevention
A methodological point first, because it explains the spectacular gaps between published figures. Prevalence depends entirely on the bone loss threshold used. Raw studies range from 1% to 47%.
| What is measured | The result |
|---|---|
| Peri-implantitis at patient level, meta-analysis of 13,030 patients | 21% |
| Peri-implant mucositis | 46% |
| Random national Swedish sample, 9 years after placement, 0.5 mm threshold | 45% of patients |
| The same sample, moderate to severe forms, 2 mm threshold | 14.5% |
| Weighted incidence over 20 years | 22% |
The same patient sample gives 45% or 14.5% depending on the bone loss threshold chosen. That is why we give the 2 figures, and the threshold with them.
The factors identified are quantified. A history of periodontitis, odds ratio of 4.08 and peri-implantitis relative risk of 3.24. Smoking, failure odds ratio of 2.40. A datum of another kind deserves flagging, in the same Swedish sample, the prosthesis having been made by a general practitioner rather than a specialist gives an odds ratio of 4.27.
One technical point has a direct consequence. Across 42 implants showing signs of peri-implant disease, excess cement was found in 81% of cases, against 0 out of 20 healthy implants. After removing the cement, signs resolved in 74% of sites. It is one of the few known reversible mechanisms, and it argues for screw-retained rather than cemented solutions.
Treating peri-implantitis, results are often modest
| What is measured | The result |
|---|---|
| Implants lost after surgery, 267 implants, mean follow-up 7 years | 19.9%, on average 4.4 years later |
| Implants requiring re-operation | 24.3% |
| Implants that lost bone, were re-operated or were lost | 59.5% |
| Predicted loss at 10 years, best against worst scenario | From 3% to 89% |
| Recurrence in a prospective trial at 5 years | 44% of implants |
The Cochrane review on the subject writes that there is no reliable evidence indicating which intervention is most effective, and that follow-up beyond one year suggests recurrence in up to all treated cases for some techniques. This is a field where prevention is worth infinitely more than treatment.
And prevention has a figure. In patients who attended at least 2 maintenance visits a year, peri-implantitis, inflammation around the implant that can lead to bone loss, was 86% less frequent. Conversely, erratic attendance gives an odds ratio of peri-implantitis diagnosis of 5.26. Maintenance is not a commercial add-on, it is the heaviest variable after placement.
Immediate loading, possible in selected situations
The Cochrane review of 26 randomised trials and 1,217 participants concludes there was no convincing evidence of a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss according to loading time. Of 26 trials, only 3 were at low risk of bias and 12 at high risk.
One nuance from the previous version of that same review deserves repeating, a high degree of primary stability appears to be a prerequisite. And a 2024 meta-analysis of 16 trials and 1,595 implants in implant-supported removable prostheses finds slightly lower survival with immediate loading. What decides is therefore not the announced calendar, it is the stability obtained on the day of placement.
Bone graft or short implant, what the comparisons show
| What is measured | The result |
|---|---|
| Implant survival in a laterally grafted sinus at 3 years, 12,020 implants | 90.1% at implant level |
| The same, measured at patient level | 16.6% of patients lose at least 1 implant within 3 years |
| Sinus membrane perforation, meta-analysis of 26 studies, 4,519 patients | 19%, about 1 procedure in 5 |
| Survival where the perforation was repaired | 97.1% against 97.7%, not significant |
| Sinus lift against short implants in 4 to 9 mm of residual bone | No difference in failure, but complications multiplied by 4.77 |
The 2nd line is the one nobody gives. A 90% survival rate per implant translates into 1 patient in 6 losing something. That is the only scale that matters to the person concerned.
On vertical bone augmentation, the Cochrane review is starker still. Compared with short implants, it gives more implant failures and more complications, with an odds ratio of 4.97 for complications. The authors write that short implants appear to be a better alternative to vertical grafting in resorbed mandibles.
We flag a limit in the evidence. The most solid survival data in grafted sinuses stop at 3 years, and we found no meta-analysis of 10-year survival specific to grafted sinuses.
Does every missing tooth need replacing?
The answer is no, and it rests on the only long-term randomised trial in the field. The shortened dental arch concept means not replacing missing molars as long as the premolars are in occlusion.
| What is measured | The result |
|---|---|
| Quality of life at 10 years, shortened arch against partial denture, 150 randomised patients | A difference of 0.6 points, not significant |
| Improvement in quality of life in both groups | 20 points, identical |
| Temporomandibular pain at 5 years | Odds ratio of 1.1, not significant |
| Functional threshold identified in the literature | 20 teeth with 9 to 10 occluding pairs |
| Effect of keeping molars on satisfaction | Little increase |
Replacing molars prevents neither joint pain, nor tooth migration, nor loss of the remaining teeth, and does not improve quality of life. Provided the premolars are kept in occlusion.
One nuance not to be hidden. Subjects with a shortened arch exert bite forces comparable to a complete dentition, but their chewing efficiency is reduced because of the smaller occlusal surface. That is not nothing for some people, and it is an individual trade-off, not a rule.
Two implants under a complete denture, better satisfaction, no proven nutritional benefit
Since 2 international consensus statements, the mandibular denture stabilised on 2 implants has been presented as the first choice standard of care in edentulous patients. Randomised trials do show significantly higher satisfaction, and one interesting point, the conventional complete denture falls short of expectations expressed before treatment, whereas the 2-implant solution meets them.
Here is the awkward datum, and we give it anyway. A randomised trial of 255 patients aged 65 and over, with a 24-hour dietary recall taken by a dietitian 1 year after placement, finds no significant difference in fibre, macronutrients, 9 micronutrients and energy intake. The authors conclude there is no evidence of nutritional advantage. The 2 implants improve satisfaction and perceived chewing. They do not change what people eat.
Partial denture, what it costs the abutment teeth
Across 856 abutment teeth followed, survival at 5 years is 86.6% for direct abutment teeth, 93.1% for indirect abutments and 95.8% for teeth not serving as abutments. The risk factors identified are the crown-to-root ratio, the tooth being root-treated, with a hazard ratio of 2.93, and pocket depth.
In other words, a partial denture transfers part of the load onto the remaining teeth, and that shows up in their survival. It is not an argument against, it is information to have before deciding.
Implants abroad, the main issue is continuity of follow-up
We cover this because our readers travel, and we cover it factually. Here is the exact state of the literature. There is no published cohort study measuring the complication or redo rate after implant care performed abroad, with a denominator and follow-up. What exists is a series of 5 cases, opinion surveys of dentists, and press analyses.
Any quantified claim about a dental tourism failure rate is therefore very probably unfounded, in either direction. We will not quote the 5% figure in circulation, because it comes from a declarative survey of clinicians and not from a cohort measurement.
What is documented, by contrast, are the structural difficulties reported by clinicians who receive patients on their return. In a survey of 326 dentists, no treatment plan in 73.6% of cases, the original clinician unavailable afterwards in 66.6%, no maintenance follow-up in 59.5%. Cross that with the fact that 2 maintenance visits a year reduce peri-implantitis by 86%, and the argument becomes one of continuity, not one of borders.
One practical, purely operational point deserves to be known by anyone getting back on a plane. Recommended minimum delays before flying are 24 hours after restorative treatment, 24 to 48 hours after a simple extraction, 72 hours after implant placement or a root canal, and at least 2 weeks after a sinus graft. The authors specify that these data come mainly from military aircrew.
Two things to know about how implant restorations age
The first. Across 133 anterior single crowns followed 11 to 21 years, 68% showed infraposition, that is, the implant crown ended up shorter than the neighbouring tooth. Only 8% exceeded 1 millimetre. The reason is not that the implant sinks, it is that the natural dentition keeps moving for life. In an untreated control group followed 20 years, 15% of teeth had gained at least 1 millimetre of clinical height and 9% had lost as much.
The second. Compared with a root-treated and restored tooth in a matched study of 196 against 196 cases, the implant has the same failure rate, 6.1%, but 5 times more reinterventions, 17.9% against 3.6%. Other, more recent work gives the advantage to the implant on raw survival. The 2 results both exist, and the populations compared are not the same.
What the studies do not allow anyone to claim
Nothing entitles us to write that an implant lasts a lifetime, because the crown fitted on top is at 89.4% at 10 years and 21% of patients develop peri-implantitis. We will not promise that every missing tooth has to be replaced, because a 10-year randomised trial says the opposite. You will not read here that an implant makes you eat better, because a trial of 255 patients with a dietary record finds no difference.
What we will say is that the heaviest variable after placement is neither the brand nor the technique. It is coming back for at least 2 maintenance visits a year, which is worth 86% fewer cases of peri-implantitis.
In practice, if this concerns you
You set out your problem, your symptoms or your question. Reports, test results and images already available can be studied before you arrive, so that the pathway is prepared. The aim is not to run every examination as a matter of course, but to select those that can genuinely help confirm a hypothesis, rule out a risk or guide the decision. The findings are then summarised and the next steps organised. Follow-up is coordinated from there.
Need a medical opinion quickly? For a concern that does not call for emergency services, you can ask to speak to a doctor at any time through Noria Health Hub. This on-demand medical consultation is billed separately from the assessment pathway.
Further reading
The companion articles.
Gums” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>https://noriahealth.com/blog/gums-what-bleeding-says-and-does-not-say/”>Gums, what bleeding says and does not say
Root” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>https://noriahealth.com/blog/root-canal-success-survival-and-disinformation/”>Root canal treatment, what decides its outcome
Sources
Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS, Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of complications of single crowns on implants, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A, A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x
Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D, Long-term 10-year dental implant survival, a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis, Journal of Dentistry, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008
Lupi SM, Agolli J, Isola G, Scribante A, Dental implant survival and marginal bone loss after a minimum of 20 years, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2026.05.011
Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x
Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES, A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures after an observation period of at least 5 years, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01119.x
Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA, Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.124094
Kern M, Türp L, Yazigi C, Fifteen-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.12.032
Kern M, Passia N, Sasse M, Yazigi C, Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses, Journal of Dentistry, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.003
Berglundh T et al., Peri-implant diseases and conditions, consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12957
Derks J, Tomasi C, Peri-implant health and disease, a systematic review of current epidemiology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12334
Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T, Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population, Journal of Dental Research, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515608832
Galarraga-Vinueza ME, Pagni S, Finkelman M, Schoenbaum T, Chambrone L, Prevalence, incidence and risk factors for peri-implant diseases, Journal of Periodontology, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.24-0154
Mustapha AD, Salame Z, Chrcanovic BR, Smoking and dental implants, a systematic review and meta-analysis, Medicina, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58010039
Wilson TG, The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease, Journal of Periodontology, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090115
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV, Interventions for replacing missing teeth, treatment of peri-implantitis, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004970.pub5
Romandini M, Bougas K, Alibegovic L, Hosseini S, Carcuac O, Berglundh T, Derks J, Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14228
Carcuac O, Derks J, Abrahamsson I, Wennström JL, Berglundh T, Risk for recurrence of disease following surgical therapy of peri-implantitis, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13653
Monje A, Wang HL, Nart J, Association of preventive maintenance therapy compliance and peri-implant diseases, Journal of Periodontology, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.170135
Leone FD, Blasi G, Amerio E, Valles C, Nart J, Monje A, Impact of compliance on peri-implant disease, Journal of Periodontology, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.23-0048
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV, Interventions for replacing missing teeth, different times for loading dental implants, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003878.pub5
Wang Z, Li S, Chen H, Guo L, Efficacy of immediate loading compared to conventional loading in implant-supported removable prostheses, Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v83.42027
Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP, A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01272.x
Liu Y, Zhou Q, Li E, Yu X, Incidence and associated factors of Schneiderian membrane perforation in maxillary sinus floor elevation, International Dental Journal, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2026.109756
Schiavo-Di Flaviano V et al., Influence of Schneiderian membrane perforation on implant survival rate, Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133751
Esposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV, Interventions for replacing missing teeth, augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008397.pub2
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P, Horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003607.pub4
Walter MH, Dreyhaupt J, Hannak W et al., The randomized shortened dental arch study, tooth loss over 10 years, International Journal of Prosthodontics, 2018. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5368
Reissmann DR, Wolfart S, John MT et al., Impact of shortened dental arch on oral health-related quality of life over 10 years, Journal of Dentistry, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.10.006
Reissmann DR, Heydecke G, Schierz O et al., The randomized shortened dental arch study, temporomandibular disorder pain, Clinical Oral Investigations, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1188-3
Gotfredsen K, Walls AW, What dentition assures oral function, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01436.x
Thomason JM et al., Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients, the York consensus statement, British Dental Journal, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728
Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA et al., The McGill consensus statement on overdentures, Gerodontology, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1159/000051998
Hamdan NM, Gray-Donald K, Awad MA, Johnson-Down L, Wollin S, Feine JS, Do implant overdentures improve dietary intake, a randomized clinical trial, Journal of Dental Research, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513504948
Fontijn-Tekamp FA et al., Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures and natural dentitions, Journal of Dental Research, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790071501
Tada S, Ikebe K, Matsuda K, Maeda Y, Multifactorial risk assessment for survival of abutments of removable partial dentures, Journal of Dentistry, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.07.018
Barrowman RA, Grubor D, Chandu A, Dental implant tourism, Australian Dental Journal, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01267.x
Doughty J et al., Contemporary dental tourism, a review of reporting in the UK news media, British Dental Journal, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-025-8330-2
Felkai PP, Nakdimon I, Felkai T, Levin L, Zadik Y, Dental tourism and the risk of barotrauma and barodontalgia, British Dental Journal, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5449-x
Landin N, Kaya C, Papia E, Eliasson A, Infraposition, esthetics, survival and complications of implant-supported crowns in the anterior maxilla, 11 to 21 years follow-up, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 2025. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11430
Jemt T, Ahlberg G, Henriksson K, Bondevik O, Changes of anterior clinical crown height in patients provided with single-implant restorations after more than 15 years of follow-up, International Journal of Prosthodontics, 2006. PMID 17323723
Doyle SL, Hodges JS, Pesun IJ, Law AS, Bowles WR, Retrospective cross sectional comparison of initial nonsurgical endodontic treatment and single-tooth implants, Journal of Endodontics, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.06.002
Lee CT, Alfred P, Tran D et al., Survival analysis of implants and endodontically treated teeth, Journal of Periodontology, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.21-0390