For the first time, a meta-analysis looks at how three premium brands’ implant surfaces influence marginal bone maintenance. According to the study, OsseoSpeed is the best, and the difference is statistically significant.

Dr. Michael R. Norton, who co-authored the study with statistician Mikael Åström, was triggered to do this meta-analysis for two reasons. First of all, he was surprised that no meta-analysis had evaluated differences in marginal bone loss due to different surface modifications among currently marketed premium brands, although the type of surface might be crucial.

Premium implants are proven to be superior

The second reason stems from the findings of a published article by Dr. Dirk Duddeck et al., comparing premium implant surfaces to look-alike implants.

Their conclusion favors premium implant surfaces as these are free of foreign materials and backed by reliable clinical documentation. The authors found that copycat implants had impurities such as organic residues and traces of iron or aluminum and, apart from case reports, no clinical documentation.

In the recently published meta-analysis, Dr. Norton points out that the above is likely to affect osseointegration and marginal bone maintenance. This may cause peri-implant infections and compromised function when using cheaper clones.

All premium surfaces are good. OsseoSpeed is better.

So, Dr. Norton knew that premium implants are better at maintaining the bone but wanted to know if the premium ones are equal. To answer this, he and Mikael Åström performed a meta-analysis of the entire body of literature concerning OsseoSpeed (Dentsply Sirona), TiUnite (Nobel), and SLA/SLActive (Straumann). According to Michael Norton, the results send a broad message and bring good news to Dentsply Sirona.

“All three have remarkably little bone loss; however, the facts are the facts. We did the statistical analysis on a prospective basis, in other words, we did not know what the outcome would be. It shows a statistically significant difference between the amount of bone loss, and OsseoSpeed is the best of the lot”, says Michael Norton.

OsseoSpeed is significantly better – and offers higher predictability

The meta-analysis includes over 11,000 implants from 113 articles, and the key takeaways include:

• OsseoSpeed had, on average, the least marginal bone loss in both 1-year (-0.29 mm) and 5-year (-0.35 mm) follow-ups.
• There was a statistically significant difference between OsseoSpeed and TiUnite and SLA/SLActive in both 1-year and 5-year follow-ups.
• In the 5-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between TiUnite and SLA/SLActive.
• OsseoSpeed offers more predictable outcomes with less variation around the mean and less spread.

Delivering the best possible functional, biologic and esthetic outcomes

In the study’s conclusion, Dr. Norton and Mikael Åström state that OsseoSpeed demonstrates superior marginal bone levels—which is vital to achieving the best possible functional, biologic and esthetic outcomes over the long term.

That OsseoSpeed performs so well comes as no surprise to Michael Norton; “The company was clever enough to patent the use of titanium dioxide particles as the grit-blasting medium, which meant that no contaminants were introduced onto the surface,” says Michael Norton.

It all started in 1990 and in the early days of 2021, it is clear that the OsseoSpeed surface is still the implant surface to beat.

Download a copy of the study/article by Dr. Michael Norton and Mikael Åström.

Read more about more that 2,000 peer-reviewed scientific article and our scientific approach to implant dentistry.