Objective: This study reviewed the literature on local or systemic administration of antisclerostin, presenting results associated with osseointegration of dental/orthopedic implants and stimulation of bone remodeling. Materials and Methods: An extensive electronic search was conducted through MED-LINE/PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science databases and specific peer-reviewed journals to identify case reports, case series, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials and animal studies comparing either the systemic or local administration of antisclerostin and its effect in osseointegration and bone remodeling. Articles in English and with no restriction on period were included. Results: Twenty articles were selected for a full-text, and one was excluded. Finally, 19 articles were included in the study (16 animal studies and 3 randomized control trials). These studies were divided into two groups, which evaluated (i) osseointegration and (ii) bone remodeling potential. Initially 4560 humans and 1191 animals were identified. At least 1017 were excluded from the studies (981 humans and 36 animals), totaling 4724 subjects who completed (3579 humans and 1145 animals). (a) Osseointegration: 7 studies described this phenomenon; 4 reported bone-implant contact, which increased in all included studies. Similar results were found for bone mineral density, bone area/volume and bone thickness. (b) Bone remodeling: 13 studies were used for description. The studies reported an increase in BMD with sclerostin antibody treatment. A similar effect was found for bone mineral density/area/volume, trabecular bone and bone formation. Three biomarkers of bone formation were identified: bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), osteocalcin and procollagen type 1 N-terminal Pro-peptide (P1NP); and markers for bone resorption were: serum C-telopeptide (sCTX), C-terminal telopeptides of type I collagen (CTX-1), β-isomer of C-terminal telopeptides of type I collagen (β-CTX) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b). There were limitations: low number of human studies identified; high divergence in the model used (animal or human); the variance in the type of Scl-Ab and doses of administration; and the lack of reference quantitative values in the parameters analyzed by authors’ studies (many articles only reported qualitative information). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this review and carefully observing all data, due to the number of articles included and the heterogeneity existing, more studies must be carried out to better evaluate the action of the antisclerostin on the osseointegration of dental implants. Otherwise, these findings can accelerate and stimulate bone remodeling and neoformation.