Examination for Patients with Dental Implants

  • John B. Wilson


Implant failure is often preventable, therefore the rationale for maintenance. The examination of implant patients is in many ways similar to the examination performed on natural teeth. Routine and regular evaluation and examination of implants is mandatory. The assumption that implants “will not fail” should be avoided. Right angle radiographs at the time of prosthetic placement are mandatory and should be repeated regularly to evaluate possible bone loss. Implants should be probed routinely and patients should have routine maintenance cleaning and reinforcement of oral hygiene techniques.


Routine examination Right angle radiograph Probing of implants Prosthetic examination Routine maintenance Oral hygiene 


  1. 1.
    Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T, et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Periodontol. 2018;89:Supp S1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(1):11–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28(4):347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Froum SJ, Rosen PS. A proposed classification for peri-implantitis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012;32(5):533.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenstein G, Carpentieri J, Cavallaro J. Open contacts adjacent to dental implant restorations: etiology, incidence, consequences, and correction. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(1):28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilson TG Jr, Valderrama P, Burbano M, et al. Foreign bodies associated with peri-implantitis human biopsies. J Periodontol. 2015;86:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol. 2009;80:1388–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boynuegri D, Nemli SK, Kasko YA. Significance of keratinized mucosa around dental implants: a prospective comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:928–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: a 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(4):712.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerber JA, Tan WC, Balmer TE, Salvi GE, Lang NP. Bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(1):75–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou Y, Gao J, Luo L, Wang Y. Does bruxism contribute to implant failure? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:410–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sridhar S, Abidi Z, Wilson TG Jr, Valderrama P, Wadhwani C, Palmer K, Rodrigues DC. In vitro evaluation of the effects of multiple oral factors on dental implants surfaces. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(3):248–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John B. Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M University College of DentistryDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations