Straumann® Tissue Level Implant Line

A true icon of implant dentistry.

Designed for one-stage surgery to simplify handling and reduce treatment complexity, this implant line goes beyond bone maintenance – it preserves peri-implant health. Straightforward to place, restore and maintain and designed to respect the biological distance, Straumann® Tissue Level implants with SLA® surface showed the lowest odds ratio of developing peri-implantitis after 9 years in an independent large-scale clinical study1. With more than 40 years of innovation and outstanding clinical performance2-5 it’s one of the best documented implant systems on the market today. 

Biology

Mimics natural anatomy, respecting the biological distance in all dimensions. Optimized crestal bone preservation with Bone Control Design™.

Osseointegration

High predictability, shorter healing times and enhanced bone regeneration even at compromised sites with SLActive®.

Strength

Reduced invasiveness thanks to smaller implants with our high-performance material Roxolid®.

Efficiency

Simplified treatment and increased efficiency in daily practice.

Handling

Flexibility and reliability thanks to the synOcta® connection. Easier handling with the Loxim™ Transfer Piece. 

Hygiene

Greatly facilitated thanks to prosthetic margin at tissue level.

Guided Surgery

Also available as guided implants.

Esthetics

Built-in emergence profile facilitates soft tissue management. 

Products

Contact us

Data usage agreement*

Read our privacy notice.

Please retype the code above

References

1 Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of Implant Therapy. Analyzed in a Swedish Population: Prevalence of Peri-implantitis. J Dent Res. 2016 Jan; 95(1):43-9. (Doctoral thesis reference: ISBN 978-91-628- 9491-7). 
2 Buser D, Janner SFM, Wittneben J-G, Brägger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE. 10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(6):839-851. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x. 
3 Wittneben J-G, Buser D, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Hicklin S, Brägger U. Complication and Failure Rates with Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Single Crowns: A 10-Year Retrospective Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):356-364. doi:10.1111/cid.12066. 
4 Fischer K., Stenberg T. al Prospective 10-year Cohort Study Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on Implant-Supported Full-Arch Maxillary Prostheses. Part 1: Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implants and Mucosal Tissue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Research. 2012 Dec;14(6):808-15 
5 Fischer K, Stenberg T. Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT) on implant-supported full-arch maxillary prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic outcomes and maintenance. Clin Implant Dent Relat Research.. 2013 Aug;15(4):498-508
6 Calvo-Guirado JL, et al: Evaluation of extra short 4 mm implants in mandibular edentulous patients with reduced bone height in comparison with standard implants: a 12-month results. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2015, 1–8 doi: 10.1111/clr.12704 
7 Sahrmann P. et al: Success of 6-mm Implants with Single-Tooth Restorations: A 3-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial, Journal of Dental Res. 2016, DOI: 10.1177/0022034516633432 
8 Takeshi Toyoshima et al. Primary Stability of a Hybrid Self-Tapping Implant Compared to a Cylindrical Non-Self-Tapping Implant with Respect to Drilling Protocols in an Ex Vivo Model. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011 Mar;13(1):71-8.