Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors which had the greatest impact on implant cervical bone health. A retrospective review was completed, and various factors were examined. The investigators hypothesized that there is no difference in implant success based on location, brand, or length of the implant. Methods: A retrospective electronic chart review of patients from the Dental College of Georgia (DCG) was done, looking at a study population composed of all patients who had an implant placed between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010. This included any type of dental implant placed at this academic institution, within any of the multiple departments who place implants. Patients were excluded as study subjects if they had the implant placed by another practitioner outside of the DCG. Information including location, brand, timing, age, sex, and complications was examined. Results: The sample was composed of data extracted from the dental records of 67 eligible study participants. Of these, 63 (94%) had data on bone loss and all results in this paper are based on these 63 patients. The majority of the participants were female (42/63, 67%), and age ranged from 41 to 88 (mean 68.6, SD 12.3, median 70). Significantly more bone loss was found in maxillary implants than in mandibular. This was true for mesial (p = 0.013, Table 1), distal (p = 0.012, Table 2), and average bone loss (p = 0.006, Table 3). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest a relation between implant length and positioning and bone loss. Future studies will focus on the development of more clinical markers and assessment tools for failure.