Implant treatment became the standard of care for the rehabilitation of partial/total edentulism. Healthy patients showed a very high success rate over a long-term follow-up, nevertheless implant failures could happen due to lack (early failure) or loss of osseointegration (late failure). The impact of systemic diseases on the outcome of implant therapy is still unclear, however it seems that the control of systemic disease may be more important than the disease itself.The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate and to compare the outcomes of dental implants in healthy patients and in patients affected by systemic diseases.Two groups of patients were selected in the study, those who had systemic disorders (MCP) and who were under treatment with several drugs and those who were healthy (HP) and who didnu2019t take any drug. Post-surgical complications were evaluated in the 2 groups. The implants were restored three months after placement in the mandible and 4 months after placement in the maxilla. Dental implant failure was considered as an implant that was removed or that had to be removed, a survival implant was an implant that was functional even though it didnu2019t meet the success criteria and a successful implant was an implant that met the success criteria. The outcome measures were: periapical radiographs that were taken at implant placement, at the restoration phase and each year after implant placement; probing depth and bleeding on probing were recorded at 4 sites for each implant at the restoration phase and each year after implant placement.Two groups of patients were enrolled in the study those who were medically compromised (20 patients) and who have received 73 Tissue Level implants (Prama, Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy) and those who were healthy and who have received 67 Tissue Level implants (Prama, Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy). The early post-operative complications were higher in the medically compromised group (5 Implants in 3 patients) than in the healthy group (3 implants in 2 patients) even though the difference was not significant. One single early failure and one late failure were registered in the MCP group, the two patients were considered ASA II patients. The percentage of implants showing less than 1.5mm of bone loss after 1 year was 100% in both groups. The mean PD and BoP was not different in the 2 groups after 1 year.The medically compromised patients didnu2019t show any increased risk for implant failure and implant survival when compared to healthy patients. Systemic diseases did not represent a contraindication to implant treatment, even though these patients require a careful follow up for the implant maintenance as well as for the medical condition.