Multibody dental implants versus standard implants: clinical outcomes, esthetics and maintenance in a mixed prospective-retrospective study

Objective. To compare clinical performance, osseointegration, esthetics, maintenance, and patient-reported outcomes of multibody dental implants versus standard implants for partial and full-arch rehabilitation. Materials and method. A mixed cohort of approximately 50 patients was assessed in a prospective arm (multibody implants) and a retrospective arm (standard implants). Minimally invasive (flapless) surgery was planned with panoramic radiographs and CBCT, and primary stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis (Penguin RFA; typical ISQ range: 55-80). Immediate or delayed (4-6 months) loading was selected according to initial stability and systemic/occlusal context. Clinics and patient identifiers were anonymized; numerical values were rounded. Main results. Three-to four-year survival was comparable between groups (approximately 94-96%), with early failures ranging between 4% and 6%. Multibody implants simplified the prosthetic workflow (fewer connections), reduced the risk of intermediate component loosening, and enabled more predictable maintenance. In cases suited for immediate loading, ISQ supported the clinical decision; delayed loading remained prevalent. High-performance polymer (PEEK/BioHPP) superstructures showed favorable biomechanical behavior and superior esthetics, although long-term monitoring is advisable. Conclusions. For extensive edentulism or challenging anatomy, multibody implants represent a safe and effective alternative to standard implants, with prosthetic and maintenance advantages. Careful case selection, digital CAD/CAM protocols, and objective stability monitoring via RFA are recommended.