Introduccion y objetivo: Existen reportes de complicaciones que hacen que el implante fracase, estojustifica la evaluacion permanente de los mismos. Se busco evaluar clinica y radiograficamente los implantescolocados en un servicio odontologico de posgrado para proponer un protocolo de evaluaciony monitoreo. Materiales y metodo: Este estudio descriptivo evaluo 30 implantes de 16 pacientes. Losantecedentes quirurgicos se tomaron de la historia clinica. Se valoraron criterios primarios como dolor,exudado, supuracion, movilidad y profundidad del surco y criterios secundarios como los indices deplaca y de sangrado. Se analizaron radiografias peri apicales milimetradas para identificar la presenciade anormalidades y la perdida osea marginal. Resultados: Diecinueve implantes cumplieron con loscriterios de exito Ahlqvist. Clinicamente, 22 implantes presentaron alguna alteracion en los criterios denormalidad evaluados. En los criterios primarios se encontro presencia de signos inflamatorios en 11implantes. El indice de higiene oral registro un porcentaje de 33% de placa en 2 implantes de un mismopaciente. El indice de sangrado registro un valor de 1 en 22 implantes. No se observo movilidad en todala muestra, ni imagenes radio-lucidas alrededor de los implantes. Conclusion: Diecinueve de los implantesanalizados registraron “exito clinico” segun los criterios de Ahlqvist. Radiograficamente 28 implantesregistraron condiciones dentro de parametros normales. Los protocolos para evaluar los implantes debenconsiderar la historia medica y quirurgica, criterios primarios y secundarios, la perdida osea marginaly la calidad del hueso alrededor del implante. Abstract: Introduction and objective: There are reports of complications that can cause implants to fail. Thisjustifies long term evaluation of implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinically and radiographicallyimplants placed in a postgraduate dental service in order propose a protocol for evaluatingand monitoring. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study evaluated 30 implants on 16 patients.The surgical records were obtained from the patient's medical history. Primary criteria such as pain,exudate, suppuration, mobility and probing depth were assessed. Secondary criteria such as plaque andprobing depth index were also assessed. Radiological analysis was performed to identify the presence ofabnormalities and the average marginal bone loss. Results: 19 of the implants evaluated met the successcriteria by Ahlqvist et al. Clinically, 22 implants showed some changes in the criteria of abnormalityassessed in this study. Regarding the primary criteria, presence of inflammatory signs were found in 11implants. Oral hygiene index showed a rate of 8% in 4 implants in the same patient, and 33% of plaquein 2 implants in the same patient. The bleeding index showed a value of 1 in 22 implants. Mobility wasnot observed in the sample and no radiolucent images around the implants. Conclusion: Nineteen of theexamined implants were considered clinically successful according to the criteria by Ahlqvist et al. Radiographically,28 implants showed conditions within normal parameters. Protocols for evaluating dentalimplants should consider the medical and surgical history, primary and secondary criteria , marginal boneloss and bone quality around the implants.