Exclusive Look
at Prof Nicolau's
2016 EAO
Presentation

Immediate
Loading

High predictability
in immediate loading

Compromised
Patients

Outstanding success
rates in compromised
patient groups

Enhanced
Bone Grafting

Significantly higher
formation of new
bone aggregate

Setting the standard for success.
Performance beyond imagination.

Together with leading clinicians worldwide, Straumann has studied the clinical performance of SLActive® implants under the most challenging medical conditions and treatment protocols to demonstrate the outstanding healing capacity of the SLActive® surface.

As new insights emerge and new data becomes available, discover how you can benefit from the high performance SLActive® surface to support your patients’ healing capabilities.

implant survival rate in
immediate loading after
10 years2
 
98.2%
survival rate
Randomised controlled
multicenter study
(30 patients, 39 implants)

IMPLANT SUCCESS RATE
IN IRRADIATED PATIENTS
WITH COMPROMISED
BONE, AFTER 1 YEAR3

100%
success rate

Randomised
Clinical Trial
(19 patients, 97 implants)

TOP

Immediate loading

with long-lasting results.

Immediate loading allows the patient to benefit from the restoration straightaway after implant placement. 
However, this demanding protocol carries a higher risk of implant failure.

implant survival rate in
immediate loading after
10 years2
98.2%
survival rate
Randomised controlled
multicenter study
(30 patients, 39 implants)
  • New long-term data from randomized, controlled, multicenter study demonstrates impressive performance of SLActive® with immediate loading.
  • In fact, the SLActive® implants delivered a 10-year survival rate of 98.2 % in this challenging protocol.2

Key researchers behind the study

TOP
Download Study Overview
TOP

SLActive® in irradiated patients.

Predictability beyond expectations

One of the most challenging patient groups for implant treatment includes patients who have undergone a combination of tumor surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The bone quality in these patients is severely compromised.

SLActive® Performance in irradiated patients

1-year follow-up3

1 patient was excluded from the study due to tumour recurrence. The graph is thus based on 19 patients with 97 implants.

5-year follow-up13,14

Excluding 4 further patients deceased due to cancer The graph is thus based on 15 patients with 79 implants.

Randomized Clinical Trial:3
  • 102 implants, 20 patients
  • Post-surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral carcinoma
* Success criteria as per Buser D. et al. Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: A 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int J Periodont Restor Dent. 2002; 22: 108–17.
** Adjusted, excluding the patients deceased due to cancer mortality.

5-year follow up:
latest publication

What clinicians say

TOP


NEWS UPDATE from Dental Tribune International

Watch an interview with Prof Nelson to get to know more about the study and challenges of prosthetic rehabilitation of irradiated patients.

Discover how SLActive® implants improved the quality of life in these patients.

TOP
Download Study Overview
TOP

Uncompromised performance.

Even in diabetic patients.

  • Patients with diabetes have reduced wound healing capacity,15,16 which puts implants at risk
  • Worldwide, 1 in 6 adults 60 years of age and older  has diabetes.17

Given the ever rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes, how can clinicians address this risk particularly in older patients?


GROWING CLINICAL EVIDENCE OF highly predictable PERFORMANCE OF SLActive® IN DIABETIC PATIENTS:

A new clinical study19 that compared SLActive® performance in patients with and without dia­betes showed uncompromised performance of SLActive® implants:

  • 100 % implant success rate in the diabetic group
  • Bone changes similar to those in healthy individuals
  • Despite the observed lower levels of bone quality all implants in this study showed good primary stability.

Performance in
diabetic patient group19

100%
success rate
Case-control clinical study
(15 diabetic and 14 healthy individuals)

Key Researchers Behind the Study

What clinicians say

TOP
New research shows SLActive® surface stimulates an early anti-inflammatory cell response compared to non SLActive surface as measured in vitro as a reduction in pro inflammatory markers* and an increase in anti-inflammatory** markers.
  • Roxolid SLActive® surface stimulates an early anti-inflammatory cell response20
  • SLActive® is associated with an increased anti-inflammatory macrophage response in the early healing phase in both healthy and diabetic animals. This may be an important mechanism to improve osseous healing under compromised systemic conditions.21
Brand new data on the SLActive®’s anti-inflammatory cell response has been presented at the 95th General Session of International Association for Dental Research, US:
 
Learn more
*Il1b, Il6, Tnfa, IL-1beta, IL-6, TNF-alpha, (pro-inflammatory)
**Il10, Tgfb1, Chil3, Rentla, IL-4, IL-10 (anti-inflammatory)
TOP
Download the SLActive® Brochure
TOP

Enhanced bone regeneration.

Even at compromised sites.

Enhanced
Bone Grafting

Bone defects can greatly compromise the predictability of osseointegration.

  • In a recent preclinical study22, SLActive® showed significantly higher formation of new bone aggregate within eight weeks compared to the standard Straumann® SLA® hydrophobic surface.

Bone aggregate formation at 8 weeks.

Histological views of bone aggregate (new bone and grafting material) 8 weeks post-grafting.

What clinicians say

TOP

Discover the healing power of the high performance surface

What Clinicians Say

TOP

Interested in trying SLActive?

Buy up to 10 Roxolid SLActive implants of your choice at the same price as SLA.

When you buy 10 implants you will also get 1 syringe of Emdogain 0,15 ml that can be used for would healing when you do implant surgery.

Give us your details and we will contact you.

TOP

REFERENCES

1 Straumann SLActive implants compared to Straumann SLA implants. Lang NP, Salvi GE, Huynh-Ba G, Ivanovski S, Donos N, Bosshardt DD. Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Apr;22(4):349-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x.

2 Nicolau P, Guerra F, Reis R, Krafft T, Benz K , Jackowski J 10-year results from a randomized controlled multicenter study with immediately and early loaded SLActive implants in posterior jaws. Presented at 25th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association of Osseointegration – 29 Sep – 1 Oct 2016, Paris.

3 Patients  treated with dental implants after surgery and radio-chemotherapy of oral cancer. Heberer S, Kilic S, Hossamo J, Raguse J-D, Nelson K. Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with modified and conventional sandblasted, acid-etched implants: preliminary results of a split-mouth study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 546–551.

4  Yerit, K., Posch, M., Seemann, M., Hainich, S., Dortbudak, O., Turhani, D., Ozyuvaci, H., Watzinger, R. and Ewers, R. (2006) Implant Survival in Mandibles of Irradiated Oral Cancer Patients. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 17, 337-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01160.x

 5 Verdonck, H.W.D., Meijer, G.J., Laurin, T., Nieman, F.H.M., Stoll, C., Riediger, D., Stoelinga, P.J.W. and de Baat, C. (2007) Assessment of Vascularity in Irradiated and Non-Irradiated Maxillary and Mandibular Alveolar Minipig Bone Using Laser Doppler Flowmetry. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, 22, 774-778.

6  Hu, W.W., Ward, B.B., Wang, Z. and Krebsbach, P.H. (2010) Bone Regeneration in Defects Compromised by Radiotherapy. Journal of Dental Research, 89, 77-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022034509352151

7 Wang, R., Pillai, K. and Jones, P.K. (1998) Dosimetric Measurements of Scatter Radiation from Dental Implants in Stimulated Head and Neck Radiotherapy. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, 13, 197-203.

8  Grotz, K.A., Al-Nawas, B., Piepkorn, B., Reichert, T.E., Duschner, H. and Wagner, W.(1999) Micromorphological Findings in Jaw Bone after Radiotherapy. Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, 3, 140-145.

9 Chambrone L, Mandia J, Shibli JA, Romito GA, Abrahao M. Dental Implants Installed in Irradiated Jaws: A Systematic Review. Journal of Dental Research. 2013;92(12 Suppl):119S-130S. doi:10.1177/0022034513504947.

10 Shugaa-Addin B, Al-Shamiri H-M, Al-Maweri S, Tarakji B. The effect of radiotherapy on survival of dental implants in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2016;8(2):e194-e200. doi:10.4317/jced.52346.

11 Nooh N. Dental implant survival in irradiated oral cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(5):1233-42. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3045.

12  Dholam KP, Gurav SV. Dental implants in irradiated jaws: A literature review. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2012 [cited 2016 Aug 17];8:85-93. Available from: http://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2012/8/6/85/92220

13  C. NACK, J.-D. RAGUSE, A. STRICKER , K. NELSON & S. NAHLES. Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with chemically modified and conventional SLA implants: five-year follow-up. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2015 42; 57—64

14  Nelson, K., Stricker, A., Raguse, J.-D. and Nahles, S. (2016), Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with chemically modified and conventional SLA implants: a clinical clarification. J Oral Rehabil, 43: 871–872. doi:10.1111/joor.12434

15 Devlin H, Garland H, Sloan P. Healing of tooth extraction sockets in experimental diabetes mellitus. J. of Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1996; 54:1087-1091.

16  Wang F1, Song YL, Li DH, Li CX, Wang Y, Zhang N, Wang BG. Type 2 diabetes mellitus impairs bone healing of dental implants in GK rats. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010; 88:e7-9.

17 IDF Diabetes Atlas, 7th Edition, 2015 http://www.diabetesatlas.org/

18 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diabetes 2014 report card. Available from: www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/reports/congress.html. Accessed September 2015.

19 Machuca G., Cabrera J.J. “A prospective, case-control clinical study of titanium-zirconium allow implants with hydrophilic surface in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus” Manuscript submitted.

20 Hotchkiss KM, Ayad NB, Hyzy SL, Boyan BD, Olivares-Navarrete R. Dental implant surface chemistry and energy alter macrophage activation in vitro. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2016, 1–10. doi: 10.1111/clr.12814

21  Lee R, Hamlet SM, Ivanovski S. The influence of titanium surface characteristics on macrophage phenotype polarization during osseous healing in type I diabetic rats: A pilot study. Clin Oral Impl Res (accepted 4/8/2016).

22 Straumann (2016). SLActive supports enhanced bone formation in a minipig surgical GBR model with coronal circumferential defects. Unpublished data

TOP