Peri-Implantitis: The 60% Problem
The mean long-term disease resolution rate after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is only 58.6%. This expert review analyzes why surgical treatment fails and what predicts success.
Clinical Tips
Why Surgical Treatment Fails and What Predicts Success By Dr. Mahmoud H. Al-Johani If you treat dental implants, you will face peri-implantitis. That is not a pessimistic statement. It is epidemiological reality. By the latest consensus estimates, roughly one in five implants develops peri-implantitis within five to ten years of function. And when it arrives, the evidence behind what can be done about it is more sobering than most clinicians realize.
Consider this figure: 58.6% . That is the mean long-term disease resolution rate after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, according to the most comprehensive systematic review of long-term studies published to date (Monje et al., 2025). Not 90%. Not 80%. Roughly six in ten. And that is under optimal conditions, with patients enrolled in supportive peri-implant care. Without that follow-up, the number drops further.
This article is not about discouragement. It is about honesty. To counsel patients effectively, set expectations, and make evidence-based treatment decisions, the data must be confronted directly. And what the data says is that surgical treatment of peri-implantitis works, but its predictability is fragile, dependent on factors that are often beyond control, and far from guaranteed. The Scale of the Problem The 2017 World Workshop and the 2024 Academy of Osseointegration and American Academy of Periodontology (AO/AAP) consensus established the current case definition: peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring around an implant, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone.
The distinction from peri-implant mucositis is critical: mucositis is reversible, peri-implantitis is not. What makes peri-implantitis particularly difficult is that it can progress silently. Patients often report no pain until significant bone loss has occurred. By the time radiographic changes are visible, the disease may already be advanced. This is why the AO/AAP 2024 consensus identified regular monitoring as the single most important modifiable factor in preventing catastrophic implant loss.
The risk factors are now well-established: history of periodontitis, smoking, uncontrolled diabetes, poor biofilm control, obesity, and implant malposition. What the Long-Term Data Actually Shows The evidence reveals a more nuanced picture than the headlines suggest. Disease Resolution: The 60% Ceiling Monje et al. (2025) published the most thorough systematic review of long-term surgical outcomes in Periodontology 2000 .
The review screened for studies with at least five years of follow-up and identified 17 qualifying long-term studies. The results: Mean disease resolution rate: 58.6% (composite definition, where reported) Progressive bone loss arrestment: 69.6% Bleeding on probing resolution: 59.9% Retreatment needed: 27.2% of cases Implant survival: 88.6% (range: 75 to 100%) Read those numbers carefully. The implant survives in nearly nine out of ten cases.
But disease resolution, the actual goal of treatment, happens in only about six. And more than a quarter of patients need a second surgery. The 7-Year RCT: Even Worse at the Extreme Where the Monje review provides the aggregate, Isler et al. (2025) provides the controlled trial perspective. This 7-year randomized clinical trial, published in Clinical Oral Implants Research , followed 57 patients treated with reconstructive surgery using xenograft plus either concentrated growth factor or collagen membrane.
At 7 years, treatment success was achieved in only 23.1% of the CGF group and 30.8% of the CM group. Disease recurrence occurred in 34.6% and 30.8%, respectively. The authors described a clear tendency toward relapse over time. The only significant predictor of failure was baseline suppuration, with an odds ratio of 15.45 . A patient presenting with suppuration at the time of surgery was roughly 15 times more likely to fail treatment.
The Romandini Data: Predicting Who Loses the Implant Romandini et al. (2023), in a retrospective study of 149 patients and 267 implants with a mean 7-year follow-up published in Clinical Oral Implants Research , provides the most detailed prognostic picture available. The implant loss rate was 19.9% over the observation period, with implant loss occurring after a mean of 4.4 years. The strongest predictor was implant surface characteristics.
Modified (rough) surfaces carried a hazard ratio of 4.5 for implant loss compared to turned (machined) surfaces. This is not a marginal difference. It is the difference between a 1% and a 63% chance of losing the implant within five years. What Predicts Failure Across the evidence, five factors consistently emerge as predictors of poor surgical outcomes: 1. Residual pockets ≥6 mm after surgery. The Monje review found that the odds of disease recurrence were approximately 8 times higher when residual pathogenic pockets were present during follow-up.
This is the single most actionable finding in the entire literature. If surgery does not achieve adequate pocket reduction, the patient is set up for recurrence. 2. Modified (rough) implant surfaces. Gardelis et al. (2025) confirmed in their systematic review that rough surfaces were generally associated with higher recurrence rates and implant loss compared to smooth surfaces. Reconstructive approaches showed better outcomes than non-reconstructive ones, but surface characteristics remained a dominant factor.
3. Baseline suppuration. Both Isler (OR 15.45) and Romandini (HR 2.7) identified suppuration at baseline as a significant negative predictor. When pus is present at the surgical planning stage, the odds of success drop dramatically. 4. Advanced bone loss. Romandini found that baseline bone loss severity independently predicted implant loss (HR 1.2 per mm). The 60% bone loss threshold marks the point where outcomes become genuinely poor.
5. Narrow keratinized mucosa (<2 mm). The Monje review ident