PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of provisional implants, which can provide patients with provisional fixed partial dentures during the healing time of augmentation procedures and/or during the osseointegration period of definitive implants until delivery of the definitive prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were consecutively included in the study. Eighteen patients (group A, primary simultaneous group) were initially treated simultaneously with provisional and definitive implants and provided with 18 interim fixed partial dentures. Thirteen patients (group B) received provisional implants in a staggered procedure. In the first stage of group B patients (augmentation phase), provisional implants were placed to bridge the augmentation phase and for anchoring 13 interim fixed partial dentures. In the second stage (secondary simultaneous group), patients of group B received provisional implants to bridge the osseointegration phase for simultaneously placed definitive implants by further use of 13 interim fixed partial dentures. All patients were followed from provisional implant and definitive implant placement to delivery of the definitive prosthesis. Loss of provisional implants and interim fixed partial dentures was noted, and stability of provisional implants was evaluated using the Periotest device. The procedures of immediate rehabilitation with fixed partial dentures using provisional implants were subjectively rated by patients with regard to satisfaction, treatment period, and acceptance. RESULTS: In 31 patients, 44 provisional fixed partial dentures were supported by 98 provisional implants. No provisional implant loss in group A or group B-second stage was observed. Only 3 (3%) provisional implants were lost in group B-first stage during the augmentation phase. Incidence (90.8% versus 9.2%) and stability (Periotest values: 8.6 +/- 3.9 versus 4.8 +/- 2.7) of provisional implants differed significantly between maxilla and mandible (P < .01). All interim fixed partial dentures (n = 44) remained in place for the intended time period but in 3 cases with provisional implant loss they were shortened. No definitive implant loss (n = 94, survival: 100%) and especially no implant loss in cases of maxillary sinus augmentation was seen. The items rated showed high satisfaction and good acceptance of the intensive surgical and prosthodontic program. CONCLUSION: This clinical review showed that (1) provisional implants can successfully provide patients with a fixed partial denture for immediate rehabilitation to bridge the osseointegration or augmentation phase, even in cases with an initially compromised bone situation and (2) although treatment is elaborate, the selected patients decided on a fixed interim rehabilitation with provisional implants rather than on a removable solution.