The aim of this study was to review the current scientific literature in order to analyse the indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients. A reference research was carried out on PubMed using the key words “implant” AND (oral OR dental) AND (systemic disease OR medically compromised), in articles published between 1993 and 2013. The inclusion criteria were the following: clinical studies in which, at least, 10 patients were treated, consensus articles, reviewed articles and meta-analysis performed in humans treated with dental implants, and which included the disease diagnosis. A total of 64 articles were found, from which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Cardiac systemic diseases, diabetic endocrine pathologies or controlled metabolic disorders do not seem to be a total or partial contraindication to the placement of dental implants. Tobacco addiction, and head and neck radiotherapy are correlated to a higher loss of dental implants. Patients suffering from osteoporosis undergoing biphosphonates therapy show an increased risk of developing bone necrosis after an oral surgery, especially if the drugs are administered intravenously or they are associated to certain concomitant medication. Key words:Dental implants, medically compromised patient, systemic diseases.

The range of indications for dental implants has broadened enormously owing to their predictability and the improvement of patient satisfaction in terms of stability, comfort, aesthetics and functionality. The aim of this article is to review those indications in patients with mental or physical disabilities as the difficulty to cope with oral hygiene often leads to teeth extraction, adding edentulousness to the impairments already present. Following that goal, available literature in Pubmed database, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and The Cochrane Library database about dental implants placement in these patients has been reviewed, assessing the variables of each study: number of patients, sex, average age, oral hygiene, parafunctional habits, impairment, bone quality, protocol of implant surgery, necessity of deep intravenous sedation or general anesthesia, follow-up period and number of failures. The comparison with studies involving other patient populations without mental or physical impediments did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the failure rate recorded. Although there is not much literature available, the results of this review seem to suggest that osseointegrated oral implants could be a therapeutic option in patients who suffer from any physical or psychological impairment. The success of an oral rehabilitation depends mainly on an adequate selection of the patients. Key words:Implants, disabled, sedation.