Since implant placement on diabetic patients still is a controversial topic and systematic reviews are at the top of scientific evidence hierarchy, a thorough assessment of the methodological quality of these reviews must be performed to inform clinicians if their conclusions and recommendations can be followed on clinical practice. An overview of systematic reviews was performed with the purpose to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement on diabetic patients. In addition, we presented a synthesis of clinical outcomes about the focused theme. An online search was performed on MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, DARE-Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and SIGLE via Open Grey. Searches were conducted from database inception to May 2018. Systematic review articles with or without meta-analysis about the placement of dental implants on diabetic patients were included. Exclusion criteria were: articles whose primary outcome was not the survival/success rate of dental implants on diabetic patients; studies that do not relate the survival/success rate of dental implants with diabetes; duplicated papers. Methodological quality assessment was performed with AMSTAR. A descriptive synthesis of clinical outcomes was performed. We identified 1.661 initial hits and eight articles were selected for overview (kappa=0.83; strong agreement). Six studies presented moderate methodological quality and two showed high methodological quality. Implant survival rate ranged from 31.8% to 100% and data from four meta-analysis showed that diabetes does not affect implant survival rate. On the other hand, data from two meta-analysis for marginal bone loss showed that diabetes statistically affects this outcome. Two of the eight included studies presented high methodological quality and their meta-analysis showed that implant placement on diabetic patients does not affect implant survival rate and statistically affects marginal bone loss. However, clinicians must be aware that marginal bone loss values were not clinically relevant and may not be safe to follow the conclusions and recommendations of these studies.