Prosthetic complications on implant-supported restorations have been documented in several papers published in the literature. Several manufacturers are present on the market but results are often cumulated and may thus be misleading. The objective of the present review is to assess the prosthetic complications of implant-supported restorations with particular interest of the results obtained with prostheses from different manufacturers.A manual search of Medline/PubMed was carried out up to June 2016, yielding a total of 6832 articles, which were narrowed down to 1450, then 347 abstracts to include 55 papers after full text reading. Papers with at least 5 years of follow-up reporting on prosthetic complications of single and fixed partial prosthesis were included. Prosthetic complications were divided into mechanical and technical complications, and reported in a table.Overall 14.4% of prosthetic complication was found for a total of 6623 restorations followed for an average of 7.4 years (range 5-16 years). Results where then sorted and compared. Single crowns were affected by 1.4% of mechanical complications and 10.9% of technical complications after a mean of 7.4 years. Fixed partial prosthesis were affected by 2.5% of mechanical complications and 18% of technical complications. Screw-retained and cemented restorations were calculated to have a 5 years rate of complications of 21.2% and 9.3%, respectively, which demonstrated a statistically difference with fisher exact test with P<0.1. Only 3 manufacturers presented more than 10 articles and were directly compared with Fisher's exact test with P<0.1. The incidence of overall complications was estimated to be after 5 years of 11.2%, 10.8% and 13.8% for Straumann, Nobel, and Astratech, respectively, but dividing results in mechanical and technical complications, gave different results. Straumann was estimated to have less mechanical complications after 5 years in respect to Nobel and Astratech, but the three were similar for technical complications.although studies present very different material and methods and do not report all data, some conclusions can be made. The difference between mechanical complications lead the authors to suppose that there might be a difference in results obtained by different implant abutment connections. It is also noticed that all papers were published by expert clinicians and universities research centers that apply rigid surgical and prosthetic protocols and use original abutments.