An implant that “bleeds”, moves or, after surgery, “has not taken” almost always prompts the same question: has it failed? In most cases the answer cannot be found by looking in the mirror. Some signs point to a problem that needs prompt treatment, others to a mechanical issue that can be solved in a single appointment, and others to nothing worrying at all. This guide explains how to tell them apart and what to do in the meantime, without replacing the examination, which remains the only way to reach a diagnosis.

Failed or unsuccessful: what are we talking about?

In everyday language an “unsuccessful” implant and a “failed” implant are the same thing. Clinically, two different situations are distinguished, with different causes and different responses.

The first is early failure: in the weeks or months after surgery the bone does not bond to the surface of the implant, and the process we call osseointegration has not taken place. This is the implant that “has not taken”. A classic review of the literature identifies as probably among the most frequent causes: excessive surgical trauma combined with impaired healing, chewing load applied too early, and infection of the site (Esposito et al., 1998).

The second is late failure: an implant that had integrated well, and has worked for years, progressively loses the bone that supports it. According to the same review, the main causes are chronic infection of the tissues around the implant, peri-implantitis, and occlusal overload, in combination with the characteristics of the patient. Telling the two apart is the first step, because an implant that never integrated and an implant that becomes diseased after years are not managed in the same way.

Which signs should not be ignored?

The 2018 international consensus on the classification of peri-implant diseases describes precisely what the gum around a healthy implant looks like: no redness, no bleeding on probing, no swelling and no pus (Berglundh et al., 2018). Any departure from this picture deserves attention.

The earliest sign, and the most overlooked, is bleeding from the gum around the implant, for example when brushing. It is the main feature of peri-implant mucositis, inflammation confined to the soft tissues, which is caused by bacterial plaque and which, if caught in time, can usually still be reversed with careful plaque removal, although the clinical signs may take more than three weeks to resolve (Heitz-Mayfield and Salvi, 2018). When pus, swelling or a receding gum appear as well, sometimes to the point of showing the metal, the diagnosis moves towards peri-implantitis, a condition in which inflammation is accompanied by progressive loss of supporting bone. There is a dedicated article on this subject: peri-implantitis, how to recognise it and when it is still treatable.

Then there is a sign that everyone expects and that is the least informative: pain. In the definition of peri-implantitis, pain does not appear among the diagnostic criteria, which are inflammation, bleeding or suppuration, increased probing depth or recession of the gum margin, and bone loss visible on X-ray. We can therefore infer that an implant can lose bone even without hurting, and the absence of pain is no guarantee. Conversely, some discomfort in the days after surgery is part of normal healing and does not in itself indicate failure.

If the crown moves, is the implant lost?

Not necessarily, and this is the distinction that most often changes the prognosis. The crown you see in the mouth is not the implant: it is fixed to an intermediate component, the abutment, which in turn is screwed into the implant placed in the bone. If the screw joining them loosens, the crown “wobbles” even though the implant is perfectly integrated.

This is far from rare. A systematic review of single crowns on implants, with a mean follow-up of five years, calculated a cumulative incidence of screw loosening of 8.8 per cent, against implant survival of 97.2 per cent over the same period (Jung et al., 2012). In other words, for a single crown on an implant, at five years you are more likely to need a screw tightened or replaced than to have lost the implant. A crown can also move because it has come away from the cement that holds it: in the same review, loss of retention affected 4.1 per cent of crowns at five years.

The situation is different when the implant itself moves: an osseointegrated implant is rigidly joined to the bone, and its mobility means that bond is no longer there. From the outside the two conditions are easily confused. The difference is established during the examination, with a clinical assessment and an X-ray.

What should you do straight away, and what should you avoid?

The first thing to do is not to wait for the problem to resolve itself. Recurrent bleeding, swelling or a crown that moves are sufficient reasons for a prompt appointment, even in the absence of pain. If the crown is loose, it is advisable to chew on the other side until the check-up, as a precaution, so as not to stress the components.

In the meantime it is useful to gather the documentation: X-rays taken at the time of surgery and in the following years, the implant record or implant passport with the make and model of the implant, and any clinical reports. The 2018 international consensus recommends recording baseline X-rays and measurements when the prosthesis is completed, precisely so that they become the point of comparison at later check-ups (Berglundh et al., 2018). Knowing the implant system also makes it possible to obtain the right components if work on the prosthesis is needed.

There are also some things to avoid. You should on no account stop cleaning around the implant for fear of making the bleeding worse: it is plaque that sustains the inflammation. Do not rely on mouthwashes or antibiotics taken on your own initiative: they do not replace daily plaque removal and should be combined with a treatment decided after diagnosis. Nor is it advisable to accept replacement of the implant as the first proposed treatment, before knowing why the previous one did not work.

What happens during the examination?

The examination must answer three questions, in order: what is happening, why it is happening, and what can still be saved. The clinical assessment includes gentle probing of the tissues around the implant, to detect bleeding, suppuration and depth, and a check of the stability of the crown and the implant. The X-ray shows the bone level, but its full value emerges only in comparison with earlier ones: a single image shows what the bone is like today, the comparison shows whether and how much has been lost.

The second question, the why, is the one most often skipped. An implant losing bone through plaque-related peri-implantitis, one overloaded by a prosthesis that does not distribute forces well and one placed in an unfavourable position need different responses. The most common causes, and how they guide retreatment, are described in the article on the causes, diagnosis and retreatment options for a failed dental implant.

Only then can it be decided whether the implant can be kept, with treatment of the tissues or a correction of the prosthesis, or whether it must be removed. When the picture is uncertain, or when demanding treatment has already been proposed, an independent written assessment helps you decide with complete information.

Can a failed implant be redone?

Yes, and the data are encouraging, with one caveat. A systematic review and meta-analysis of twenty-four studies estimated that implants placed to replace a failed implant survive at one year in 96.7 per cent of cases, with no significant difference between immediate and delayed placement (Gareb et al., 2025). The same authors point out, however, that survival remains lower than that of implants placed the first time, and that a second attempt at the same site achieves poorer results than the first.

The practical consequence is simple: each new attempt starts from slightly less favourable conditions than the last, so it is best that it is the final one. That is why replacement only makes sense after the causes of the failure have been identified and corrected, and after the quality and quantity of the remaining bone have been assessed. When, after removal, the bone volume is insufficient, the literature recommends regenerating it straight away and placing the new implant at a later stage. Beyond these data, in selected cases of horizontal deficiency an approach of regeneration without grafts can also be considered. The retreatment options are described in the guide on what to do when dental implants have failed.

Frequently asked questions

My implant did not take: was it my fault?

There is rarely a single cause. The literature associates implant failure with a combination of factors: general health, smoking, bone quality, and the way the surgery and loading were carried out. The examination serves to understand which of these played a part in your case, before planning a new attempt.

If my implant bleeds when I brush it, should I stop cleaning it?

No. Bleeding is the sign of inflammation sustained by plaque, and stopping cleaning leaves it free to act: it is essential to continue your home hygiene gently and to book a check-up.

Does an implant in the wrong position always have to be removed?

Not always. It depends on how far the position compromises the prosthesis, the ability to clean and the appearance of the smile. In our experience, in some cases it can be compensated for with the prosthesis, in others the implant has to be replaced; the choice requires a clinical examination and a three-dimensional X-ray.

How soon can an implant be replaced?

It depends on the bone that remains after removal. If it is sufficient, the new implant can be placed straight away, with results similar to delayed placement; if not, the bone is rebuilt first and the implant placed at a later stage.

First appointment. If you have an implant that bleeds, moves or has not integrated, and would like to understand what is happening and what options remain, the practice offers a structured first appointment with an analysis of causes and a written report on the options.

References

1. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(3):721-764. PMID 9672097. A broad narrative review, dated but still the reference synthesis on the distinction between early and late failure; the factors it lists are associations, not causes proven case by case.

2. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S313-S318. doi:10.1002/JPER.17-0739. The international consensus document that sets the definitions of peri-implant health, mucositis and peri-implantitis in current use: it is the basis of the signs described in this guide.

3. Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Salvi GE. Peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20):S237-S245. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12953. A narrative review prepared for the same World Workshop: mucositis reverses at the level of biological markers once plaque control is restored, but the clinical signs may take more than three weeks to resolve.

4. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):2-21. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x. A systematic review of 46 studies: it concerns single crowns, not bridges or full arches, and shows that mechanical complications are more frequent than implant loss.

5. Gareb B, Vissink A, Terheyden H, Meijer HJA, Raghoebar GM. Outcomes of implants placed in sites of previously failed implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025;54(3):268-280. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2024.10.006. A recent meta-analysis of 24 studies; the survival figure is at one year, so it describes the early outcome of the second implant, not its long-term durability.