After a long process of exploration, oral implant technology has developed rapidly in the last two decades and has gradually become mature. The issue of the success criteria of implantation has also received much attention from experts in oral implantology in various countries, and from the 1970s to the present, their own criteria have been proposed. In 1978, the National Institute for Health Research (N.I.H.) proposed the following criteria for the evaluation of the success of oral implants: (1) the movement of the implant in any direction is less than 1 mm; (2) radiographic examination, there is no clear criterion for the evaluation of success in the radiographic area around the implant; (3) the bone resorption in the vertical direction does not exceed 1/3 of the implant; (4) curable gingivitis is allowed; there is no symptom, no gingival infection. gingivitis; no symptoms, no infection, no adjacent tooth damage, no sensory abnormalities and numbness, no damage to the mandibular canal, maxillary sinus and nasal floor tissues; and (5) a 5-year success rate of 75% was required. In 1979, Schnittman, Schalman proposed the criteria for evaluating the success of oral implants: (1) the movement of the implant in any direction is less than 1mm; (2) the radiolucent area around the implant shown on the radiograph does not affect the success; (3) the bone resorption in the vertical direction is less than 1/3 of the implant; (4) gingivitis can be controlled, no damage to the adjacent teeth, no numbness, pain and canal and sinus penetration; (5) 5 years 75% normal function. In 1982, Crainin Silverbranch, Sher, and Saltaer proposed the following criteria for evaluating the success of oral implants: (1) the implant has exercised its function for more than 5 years; (2) there is no obvious butterfly-shaped dark area on the X-ray of the implant neck; (3) there is no gingival bleeding according to Mahleman’s index; (4) the implant is not loose; (5) there is no pain nor percussion pain; (6) there is no granuloma or gingival hyperplasia around the implant; (7) X-ray showed no widening of the gap around the implant. In 1984, Mckinneg. Koth, Steflik proposed (the same criteria as those proposed by the ADA at the NIH-HARVARD meeting at Harvard University in 1978) subjective and objective indicators for the evaluation of implant success: subjective indicators: (1) function; (2) absence of discomfort; (3) improvement of self-perception, emotional and psychological factors. Objective indicators: (1) jaw balance, good vertical distance; (2) bone resorption not more than 1/3, no symptoms; (3) gingivitis can be controlled; (4) less than 1 mm of movement in all directions; (5) no implant-related infections; (6) no damage to adjacent teeth and supporting tissues; (7) no numbness, no maxillary sinus, mandibular canal and nasal penetration; (8) no macrophage erosion of tissues; (9) 75% function at 5 years. In 1986, the criteria for evaluating the success of oral implants by Albrektsson, Zarb, Worthington, and Erierson, Sweden: (1) no mobility of the implant; (2) no translucent areas around the implant as shown by X-ray; (3) less than 0.2 mm/year of bone resorption in the vertical direction after one year of functional loading of the implant; (4) no persistent or irreversible symptoms of the implant, such as pain, (4) No persistent or irreversible symptoms of the implant, such as pain, infection, numbness, necrosis, abnormal sensation and damage to the mandibular canal; (5) If the above requirements are met, a success rate of 85% or more in 5 years and 80% or more in 10 years is the minimum standard. In the first national seminar on dental implants held in Zhuhai in 1995, experts proposed the following criteria for evaluating the success of oral implants through thorough discussions with reference to advanced foreign experience and the actual situation in China: (1) The implant is free from any clinical motility under the condition of supporting and retaining the function of the denture. Good function. (2) No persistent and/or irreversible damage to the mandibular canal, maxillary sinus, nasal floor tissue, pain, numbness, abnormal sensation and other symptoms after implantation, and good self-perception. (3) On radiological examination, there is no translucent area at the bone interface around the implant. (4) Bone resorption in the vertical direction does not exceed 1/3 of the length of the part implanted in the bone at the completion of the implant surgery (as shown on radiographs using the standard projection method). The transverse bone resorption does not exceed 1/3 and the implant does not loosen. (5) Gingivitis can be controlled. No implant-related infections. (6) No damage to the supporting tissues of adjacent teeth. (7) Aesthetically pleasing. (8) Chewing efficiency of 70% or more.