## 4 Discussion  
Patients selected for this research paper underwent clinical, radiographic, and blood examinations before surgery to identify any signs of uncontrolled hypertension. Uncompensated systemic diseases could interfere with implant osseointegration processes, implant survival rates, and the possible development of intra- and postoperative complications [34]. In this clinical study, it was possible to identify high implant survival rates in both patient Groups A and B. Thus, we are able to state that there is no statistically significant difference on implant survival between a patient with hypertension and a healthy patient. However, it should be remembered that statistical significance does not necessarily mean clinical significance. The number of participants in each group, the duration of the study, and the specific characteristics of the implants used should also be taken into account in order to interpret the data correctly. In contrast to our study, [PERSON] et al., in their 10-year retrospective study of 826 patients with placement of 1420 implants, identified the main risk factors of implant failures including hypertension. Precisely, they stated that implant failures could be traced to cigarette smoking in 37 percent of cases, hypertension in 20.8 percent, diabetes in 20.3 percent, and cardiovascular disease in 18.7 percent. While in the group of healthy patients, failures were approximately 4.37% [35]. In the retrospective cohort study by [PERSON] et al., 728 patients and 1499 implants were evaluated by dividing patients into two different groups: hypertensive drug users and non-hypertensive drug users. In their study, they investigated the possible association between antihypertensive medication and the survival rate of dental implants, stating that only 0.6 percent of implants had failed in patients taking antihypertensive medication, while 4.1 percent of implants had failed in the non-users' group, thus suggesting that antihypertensive drugs may prove to be a positive factor in the process of osseointegration of implant fixtures [36]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Prosthetic Complications** & **Group A** & **Group B** \\ \hline
**Provisional prosthesis fracture** & 1 & 2 \\ \hline
**Provisional screw loosening (abutment)** & 2 & 2 \\ \hline
**Provisional screw loosening (prosthetic)** & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
**Detachment of the veneering material (final prosthesis)** & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Prosthetic complications classified by groups. In the present study, it can be stated that there were no statistically significant differences on marginal bone loss between the two groups considered. The literature review by [PERSON] et al. assessed the impact of systemic disease on the success of implant therapy by going to human studies that included implant rehabilitations, a diagnosis of systemic disease, and at least implant survival. The authors highlight how a single risk factor may not have a significant impact, while a combination of several independent factors could lead to a different outcome [37]. Contrary to our research paper, in the systematic review and meta-analysis by [PERSON] et al. carried out on a final selection of 17 articles investigating the relationship between systemic drug intake and bone metabolism with the consequent impact on implant failures, it was found, in the article by [PERSON], that antihypertensive drugs can interfere with and inhibit the physiological action of osteoclasts on bone, leading to a blockade of the renin-angiotensin system [38; 39]. [PERSON] et al., in their retrospective cohort study carried out on 35 patients and a total of 77 implants with a follow-up of 7 years and 1 month, evaluated the influence of antihypertensive drugs on peri-implant clinical parameters by dividing patients into two groups: those taking antihypertensive drugs and those who were healthy.