Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-10-04, 10:28:48 | version 1.38.0
PUBLISHED IN DUBAI www.dental-tribune.me September-October 2017 | No. 5, Vol. 7 A proven heritage By NEOSS Convinced that existing implant sys- tems were too complex, Professor Neil Meredith and Fredrik Engman founded Neoss in 2000 with the idea to create a much simpler and more rationalized solution. The benefits of the resulting products are clear: reduced patient treatment time, op- timized inventory control and supe- rior outcomes for patients. Features of the Neoss ProActive® Surface Surface roughness and hydrophilic- ity are essential to the absorption of proteins and biomolecules onto implant surfaces thereby facilitating healing and bone formation4 Neoss has utilised Electrowetting on titanium surfaces to increase hydro- philicity and maximise the penetra- tion of blood and its components onto the implant surface. Proven clinical evidence and design of Neoss Implants Produced with Commercially Pure Titanium (Grade IV), ProActive Im- plants have a low surface roughness flange designed to reduce marginal bone loss1. At the same time, higher surface roughness of the threaded body of the implants optimises sta- bility and osseointegration. The universal Thread Cutting and Forming (TCF) design of the implant ensures suitability for all bone quali- ties. The secondary cutting face pro- vides additional efficiency in dense bone2. Threads extend to the tip of the implant ensuring excellent sta- bility. Proven clinical experience A randomly selected population of 100,000 implants was sampled from the Neoss warranty registry and statistical analysis indicated a 3 year cumulative survival rate of 98.2%. Of the 1.8% of failures, the ma- jor aetiological factors were smoking, a combination of poor bone quality, bone quantity and immediate load- ing3. The etched, blasted and treated Pro- Active Implant surface stimulates bone to form more rapidly and with a greater strength at the implant interface5. ProActive Implants sur- passed the performance of com- petitive implants in in-vivo removal torque tests6. In the first published study of ProAc- tive Implants, they recorded a 100% success rate after 1 year of placement in non-bone grafted patients and 98.5% in bone augmented patients7. In the same study group of patients, marginal bone loss of 0.4mm was re- corded at one year8. Studies have consistently shown outstanding survival rates and reten- tion of marginal bone levels. With five implant diameters, two im- plant designs and just one connec- tion, the Neoss Implant system pro- vides both surgeons and restorative dentists the greatest possible free- dom and flexibility without compro- mise in performance or success. All prosthetic components in the Neoss System are compatible with both the ProActive Straight and ProActive Ta- pered implants providing a choice of implant at the time of surgery. NeoLoc® connection NeoLoc® is the unique Neoss im- plant to abutment connection that offers the advantages of a remark- ably strong and tight connection, proven long-term clinical success, high levels of bone preservation, op- timal flexibility for restoration and the ‘one connection’ concept. Neoss engaging abutments have deformation lugs which minimise rotational movements and secures a distinct seating. Crystaloc™ abutment screws are 30% stronger than gold screws in static strength testing thus facilitat- ing a high clamping force between the abutment and implant8 offer- ing an additional 10% resistance to fracture during long-term clinical function9. Warranty data over many years has demonstrated an unparalleled low fracture rate with less than one frac- tured implant per 10,000 implants10. References: 1. Sennerby L, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Wennerberg A, Lindhe J. Implant stability during initiation and reso- lution of experimental periimplan- titis: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(3):136–40. 2. Meredith N; A review of implant design, geometry and placement. Appl Osseointegrated Res 2008 6 pp 6–12. 3. Neoss Product Performance Re- port 2009 1 pp20–26 (in press). 4. Davies J, 1996. ‘Dynamic Contact Angle Analysis and Protein Adsorp- tion’ in Davies J (Ed), Surface Analyti- cal Techniques for Probing Biomate- rial Processes, CRC Press, New York. 5. Stimulation of Bone Formation on Titanium Implants by Surface Modi- fication: An In Vivo Study: Sennerby L, Gottlow J, Engman F, Meredith N. (in preparation). 6. Gottlow J & Sennerby L, 2010. ‘In- fluence of surface and implant de- sign on stability of five commercial titanium implants. A Biomedical study in the rabbit’, AO Meeting, Post 83 7. Zumstein T, Meredith N, Divitini N. A Comparative Retrospective Follow Up of Patients Treated with Implants Either with a Blasted or Super Hydro- philic Surface with or without an Ad- junctive GBR Procedure. The Journal of Implant & Advanced Clinical Den- tistry 2011;3(6):49-58. 8. Data on file. 9. Fatigue Performance according to ISO 14801, Neoss Sponsored Report 10. Neoss warranty data on file Since its foundation in 2000, Neoss continues to innovate and invest in product development research, design, manufacturing and sell- ing products of the highest quality which offer market leading function- ality. Following double-digit growth in 2016, Neoss sits as a pioneer in dentistry, with ever-growing clinical evidence that delivers long term and exceptional patient results. The ex- pansion and success of the company can be credited to the success rates of Neoss’ products, which are guided by the company ethos of intelligent simplicity of implant dentistry with stability, strength and speed. Neoss continues its success story and will celebrate new product innova- tions in practice at their LINK Team Days event in Sorrento, Italy in Octo- ber this year. For further information on the Ne- oss Implant System, please contact Ahmed Ghandour, Neoss Area Sales Manager for Middle East & Africa: info.mea@neoss.com/ +971 4 448 75 77 Advancing levels of precision in dental implants through computer navigated surgeries By Dr Shyam Bhat, India & Dr Shankar Iyer, USA become the standard of care in treat- ment planning for dental implants. Advances in technology have en- hanced clinicians’ comfort and ac- curacy by minimizing the margin of error. We have seen a paradigm shift from using only a radiograph to us- ing cone beam CT scans for diagno- sis. A cone beam CT scan now has Traditionally, implants have been placed free hand or aided by the use of static guides derived from a CT scan. Although using well-planned surgical guides have all the same advantages, they are usually bulky and do not provide adequate infor- mation regarding angulation of the drill, degree of deviation from the planned position, implant delivery in a three-dimensional perspective and often precludes irrigation to the osteotomy sites. A possibility of er- ror always exists, no matter how thoroughly the guide is planned. Using a static surgical guide along with a specific guided implant sur- gery instrumentation can result in less than 2 mm of crestal and apical deviation and an angulation error of less than 5 percent1-8. However, implant placement with- out any guide results in significantly more error than either guiding mo- dalities8. This article is an attempt to explain the instrumentation and procedure involved in placing im- plants under dynamic computer navigation. ÿPage D2