Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (667 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Biocompatible materials placed into (endosseous) or onto (subperiosteal) the jawbone to support a crown, bridge, or artificial tooth, or to stabilize a diseased tooth.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Dental Implant; Implant, Dental; Implants, Dental; Dental Prostheses, Surgical; Prostheses, Surgical Dental; Prosthesis, Surgical Dental; Surgical Dental Prostheses; Surgical Dental Prosthesis.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis
- Narrower topics
- Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
- See also
- Dental Implantation; Tooth, Artificial
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 34,430 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Dental Implants” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 10,914 of them (31.7%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 12,725 records.
Reviews account for 4,670 records (13.6%) and meta-analyses for 995. Randomized controlled trials number 1,978 (5.7%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 3,787 |
| 2000-2009 | 7,004 |
| 2010-2019 | 12,725 |
| 2020 onward | 10,914 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 4,670 | 13.6% |
| Meta-analyses | 995 | 2.9% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,978 | 5.7% |
Method: PubMed query "Dental Implants"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology
A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bone-Level Versus Tissue-Level Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 11 | cc by PMID 41431257 · DOI · PMC12972610 |
| Impact and efficacy of systemic antibiotics for peri-implant diseases treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical and microbiological outcomes | 2025 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 10 | cc by PMID 41923333 · DOI · PMC13428087 |
| Impact of Peri-Implant Phenotype on Implant Therapy Outcomes: A 5-Year Cohort Analysis on Soft Tissue-Level Implants | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 9 | cc by PMID 41387987 · DOI · PMC12890457 |
Bone-Level Versus Tissue-Level Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectivesTo compare the long-term survival rate and prevalence of peri-implant diseases between bone-level (BL) and tissue-level (TL) titanium implants.
- Closing excerpt
- Greater mucosal thickness was protective against both conditions.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (226 words)
ObjectivesTo compare the long-term survival rate and prevalence of peri-implant diseases between bone-level (BL) and tissue-level (TL) titanium implants. The secondary objective was to assess the effect of implant diameter and other risk indicators of peri-implant diseases on the outcomes of implant therapy.Materials and methodsAdult patients with at least one non-molar implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) were included in the study. Relevant clinical and radiographic outcomes, along with patient-related, anatomical, surgical and prosthetic-related factors, were analysed.ResultsA total of 266 patients and 336 ISPs were included after a mean follow-up of 11.2 ± 1.5 years. Implant survival rates at the implant level were 99.4% and 98.2% for BL and TL implants, respectively. The prevalence of peri-implant health, mucositis and peri-implantitis was comparable between BL (21.1%, 67.5% and 11.4%, respectively) and TL implants (20.5%, 70.5% and 9.0%). Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm showed lower peri-implantitis rates (7.2%) compared to those with 4.1 mm (13.3%; p = 0.02). Notably, 3.3 mm TL implants exhibited a significantly lower peri-implantitis rate (4.8%) than BL implants (9.6%; p ConclusionsBL and TL implants at non-molar sites exhibited comparable survival and peri-implant disease rates. However, TL implants with 3.3 mm diameter showed lower peri-implantitis rates. A higher plaque score increased the risk of both mucositis and peri-implantitis, whereas smoking was a strong risk indicator for peri-implantitis. Greater mucosal thickness was protective against both conditions.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41431257 · DOI · PMC12972610
Impact and efficacy of systemic antibiotics for peri-implant diseases treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical and microbiological outcomes [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- AimTo evaluate the adjunctive effects of systemic antibiotics (SA) on clinical and microbiological outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant diseases.
- Closing excerpt
- However, given the heterogeneity of the available evidence, further high-quality, long-term studies are needed.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (244 words)
AimTo evaluate the adjunctive effects of systemic antibiotics (SA) on clinical and microbiological outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant diseases.Materials and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251059056). Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials evaluating SA as adjuncts to non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM) and to non-surgical or surgical therapy of peri-implantitis (PI) were included. Rob2 and MINORS tools were used to assess the risk of bias of included articles.ResultsEighteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which only nine randomized clinical trials met the criteria for quantitative analysis. For PM treatment, SA did not significantly affect any assessed clinical outcomes (p>0.05). For PI treatment, the meta-analysis showed that, in both non-surgical and surgical PI treatment, adjunctive SA resulted in a significant bleeding on probing reduction at 12 months (p=0.007) and a significant probing pocket depth reduction at 12 months (p=0.004). However, no significant improvements in marginal bone level (MBL) were observed. For antimicrobial outcomes, only 2 studies reported significant effects of metronidazole as an adjunct to treatment on reductions in P. gingivalis and T. forsythia up to 12 months.ConclusionsSA do not provide additional clinical or microbiological benefits in the treatment of PM. In PI, adjunctive systemic antibiotics may offer only limited improvements in selected clinical outcomes and specific peri-implant pathogens for up to 12 months, without consistent benefits on MBL. However, given the heterogeneity of the available evidence, further high-quality, long-term studies are needed.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41923333 · DOI · PMC13428087
Impact of Peri-Implant Phenotype on Implant Therapy Outcomes: A 5-Year Cohort Analysis on Soft Tissue-Level Implants [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveTo investigate the associations between peri-implant phenotype characteristics and long-term outcomes of soft tissue-level implants.
- Closing excerpt
- Clinicaltrialsgov/study/NCT02925078.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (197 words)
ObjectiveTo investigate the associations between peri-implant phenotype characteristics and long-term outcomes of soft tissue-level implants.MethodsTwenty-five tissue-level implants from a previous controlled clinical trial were evaluated at 1- and 5-year follow-ups after crown delivery. Data included ultrasonographic scans (mucosal thickness and supracrestal tissue height), standardised 2D radiographs, cone beam computed tomography, clinical outcomes (mucosal recession, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing), patient-reported outcomes and peri-implant health status. Standard logistic and linear regression models were used to analyse associations of implant- and patient-related factors with outcomes, including peri-implant disease status, mucosal recession and marginal bone level (MBL) changes.ResultsFive-year implant survival was 100%, with peri-implant mucositis diagnosed in 36% of the implants. Mean MBL changes from the first to the fifth year was 0.29 ± 0.29 mm. Baseline (pre-surgical) buccal soft-tissue thickness ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, tissue-level implants showed excellent survival rates and patient satisfaction at 5 years. Several peri-implant parameters-such as supracrestal tissue height ≥ 2.8 mm, restorative emergence angle ≤ 35.5° and buccal bone thickness ≥ 1.5 mm-were associated with favourable outcomes. These exploratory thresholds may be considered hypothesis-generating and could help guide future research and clinical monitoring, although validation in larger cohorts is essential.Trial registrationwww.Clinicaltrialsgov/study/NCT02925078.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41387987 · DOI · PMC12890457
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification and its impact on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis [4]
- Research article What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis [5]
- Research article Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [7]
- Research article Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns [9]
Full-text reviews on EvidenceLib
Open-access review articles about this topic, reproduced in full with authors, licence and references.
Risk Factors related to Late Failure of Dental Implant—A Systematic Review of Recent Studies
Thanh An Do, Hoang Son Le, Yen-Wen Shen et al. · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020 · CC BY 4.0
Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review
Felice Lorusso, Sammy Noumbissi, Inchingolo Francesco et al. · Materials 2020 · CC BY 4.0
Bone Grafts and Substitutes in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments
Rusin Zhao, Ruijia Yang, Paul R. Cooper et al. · Molecules 2021 · CC BY 4.0
References
- Couso-Queiruga E, Fonseca M, Chappuis V, Ortiz GA, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, et al.. Bone-Level Versus Tissue-Level Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study. . 2026. PMID 41431257 · DOI · PMC12972610
- Isola G, Polizzi A, Angjelova A, Jovanova E, Pizzo G, Sculean A. Impact and efficacy of systemic antibiotics for peri-implant diseases treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical and microbiological outcomes. . 2025. PMID 41923333 · DOI · PMC13428087
- Sabri H, Hazrati P, Tavelli L, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Calatrava J, Wang HL, et al.. Impact of Peri-Implant Phenotype on Implant Therapy Outcomes: A 5-Year Cohort Analysis on Soft Tissue-Level Implants. . 2026. PMID 41387987 · DOI · PMC12890457
- Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Avila-Ortiz G, Urban IA, Giannobile WV, Wang HL. Peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification and its impact on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2021. PMID 32710810 · DOI
- Diaz P, Gonzalo E, Villagra LJG, Miegimolle B, Suarez MJ. What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2022. PMID 36261829 · DOI · PMC9583568
- Jorba-García A, González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021. PMID 33635397 · DOI
- Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al.. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020. PMID 32613641 · DOI
- Ramanauskaite A, Fretwurst T, Schwarz F. Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2021. PMID 34779939 · DOI · PMC8593130
- Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Latyshev A, Rabel K, Kohal RJ, Karasan D. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021. PMID 34642991 · DOI · PMC9293296
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.