Objective This study aims to report the implant survival rate of dental implants of partially dentate patients in the anterior mandible and the potential risk indicators for implant failure. Materials and Methods Patients with implant‐supported restorations of single or multiple teeth in the anterior mandible restored with fixed partial implant‐supported restorations were evaluated. Patient demographic data, implant placement timing, and loading protocol, biological and/or technical complications at the time of the last clinical and radiographic follow‐up visit were registered. Survival rate, success rate, and potential risk indicators for implant failure were calculated. Results A total of 108 patients and 186 implants with a mean follow‐up period of 5.48 years (0.1–11.34 years) were included. The 11.3‐year cumulative survival rate was 90.9%. Immediate implant placement (OR = 2.75) (p = .08) and immediate implant loading (OR = 8.8) (p = .02*) indicated a higher risk of failure than late implant placement or loading. When combining both categories (type 1A), an OR = 10.59 (p = .04*) for implant failure was found compared to category 4C. Implants placed following static—computer‐assisted implant surgery (S‐CAIS) showed less risk of failure compared to freehand implant placement (OR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02–1.37) (p = .09). Conclusions The survival rate of implants placed in the anterior mandible was considerably low (90.9%). S‐CAIS, late placement, and conventional loading are protective factor against implant failure in the anterior mandible.

Background As more patients choose dental implants as their primary treatment option to restore edentulous ridges or to replace compromised dentition, preventive strategies for peri‐implant diseases and complications have become an important topic. Purpose The aim of the review article is to summarize the current available evidence on the potential risk factors/indicators for peri‐implant disease development and then focus on the preventive strategies for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Materials and Methods After reviewing the diagnostic criteria and the etiology of peri‐implant diseases and conditions, evidence on the possible associated risk factors/indicators for peri‐implant diseases were searched and identified. Recent studies were also surveyed to explore the preventive measures for peri‐implant diseases. Results The possible associated risk factors of peri‐implant diseases can be divided into the following categories: patient‐specific factors, implant‐specific factors, and long‐term factors. Patient‐specific factors such as history of periodontitis and smoking have been conclusively associated with peri‐implant diseases, whereas findings on others, such as diabetes and genetic factors, remain inconclusive. It has been suggested that both implant‐specific factors, such as implant position, soft tissue characteristics, and the type of connection used, and long‐term factors, such as poor plaque control and a lack of maintenance program, have a strong impact on maintaining the health of a dental implant. Assessment tool for evaluating the risk factors can be a potential preventive measure for peri‐implant disease prediction, and it is needed to be properly validated. Conclusion Proper maintenance program for early intervention to control peri‐implant diseases at the initial stage and pretreatment assessment of the potential risk factors is the best strategy to prevent implant diseases.