How to read this. A study reflects the patients, time period and definitions it used. Survival figures from different studies cannot be compared as if they were a head-to-head test. Manufacturer statements are labelled separately from independent research throughout this site.
Surfaces: TiUnite® and TiUltra™
Systematic reviewMeta-analysis of 106 prospective studies
Clinical performance of implants with a moderately rough (TiUnite) surface
Karl M et al. · Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants · 2017 · PubMed 28708905 · DOI
What it found: Implant-level survival 99.5% at 1 year and 95.1% at 10 years (patient level 91.5%); mean bone level change about −0.9 mm at 5 years; peri-implantitis in 5.2% of patients in the 19 studies that reported it.
Limitations: Mixed indications and study quality; peri-implantitis rarely reported; co-author long involved with the surface.
Preclinical studyAnimal study (minipig), 2 and 8 weeks
Osseointegration of anodized vs sandblasted implant surfaces in a grafted dehiscence defect
Shahdad S et al. · Clin Oral Implants Res · 2025 · PubMed 39387129 · DOI
What it found: No difference in amount and height of new bone between the gradient anodised implant and two sandblasted/acid-etched replicas.
Limitations: Animal model; short healing; not a patient outcome study.
NobelActive® implant
Independent clinical studyMulticentre randomised controlled trial, 3 years
Variable-thread tapered implants vs a standard tapered design after immediate loading
Arnhart C et al. · Eur J Oral Implantol · 2012 · PubMed 22866289
What it found: 127 of 177 patients evaluated at 3 years; survival 95.7% (NobelActive internal), 96.3% (external) and 96.6% (NobelReplace tapered), no significant difference.
Limitations: Industry-supported; 3-year follow-up; drop-outs.
Independent clinical studyRetrospective university cohort, up to 7 years
Tapered implant with high primary stability in patients with local and systemic risk factors
Saridakis SK et al. · Int J Implant Dent · 2018 · PubMed 30556111 · DOI
What it found: 207 implants in 98 patients; overall survival 91.5%; 94.8% without risk factors versus 76.5% with both local and systemic risk factors.
Limitations: Small, retrospective, single centre; mean follow-up 34 months.
Nobel Biocare N1™ system
Manufacturer-sponsored researchLaboratory and early in-vivo data
A new site preparation protocol that supports bone quality evaluation (OsseoShaper)
Velikov S et al. · J Clin Med · 2020 · PubMed 32054122 · DOI
What it found: Site-preparation torque correlated strongly with bone density and predicted final implant insertion torque.
Limitations: Authored by manufacturer employees; not a long-term clinical outcome study.
All-on-4® treatment concept
Independent clinical studyRetrospective case series, 10–18 years
The All-on-4 treatment concept in the edentulous mandible: 10 to 18 years
Maló P et al. · Clin Implant Dent Relat Res · 2019 · PubMed 30924309 · DOI
What it found: 471 patients, 1,884 implants in immediate function; prosthesis survival 98.8%, implant survival 93%, success 91.7%. Previous biological complications raised the risk of implant failure.
Limitations: Single centre (developer's clinic); 31.6% lost to follow-up.
Independent clinical studyRetrospective case series, 5–13 years
The All-on-4 concept in the edentulous maxilla: 5 to 13 years
Maló P et al. · Clin Implant Dent Relat Res · 2019 · PubMed 30924250 · DOI
What it found: 1,072 patients, 4,288 implants; prosthesis success 99.2%, implant survival 94.7%. Male sex and smoking were associated with implant failure.
Limitations: Single centre; 20.4% lost to follow-up.
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis, 55 studies
All-on-4 and All-on-6 implant-supported fixed prostheses
Shao WH et al. · Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg · 2026 · PubMed 42031576 · DOI
What it found: Pooled long-term (≥5 years) implant survival 98.1% for four-implant and 97.5% for six-implant bridges; mechanical complications about 6% in both.
Limitations: Mixed brands and study designs; many short follow-ups.
Systematic reviewMeta-analysis of 44 publications
Tilted versus axially placed dental implants
Chrcanovic BR et al. · J Dent · 2015 · PubMed 25239770 · DOI
What it found: No overall difference in failure (1.63% tilted vs 1.81% axial); in upper-jaw-only studies tilted implants failed more often (RR 1.70).
Limitations: Mostly observational studies; varied follow-up.
History of osseointegration
Independent clinical studyConsecutive clinical series, 1965–1980
A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw
Adell R et al. · Int J Oral Surg · 1981 · PubMed 6809663 · DOI
What it found: 2,768 implants in 410 jaws; in the standardised group 81% of upper and 91% of lower implants remained stable at 5–9 years; bridges stable in 89% and 100%.
Limitations: Historic implants and techniques; not comparable with modern systems.
Zygomatic implants
Consensus / guidelineITI consensus report based on systematic reviews
ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants
Al-Nawas B et al. · Int J Implant Dent · 2023 · PubMed 37698775 · DOI
What it found: Mean zygomatic implant survival 96.2% over a mean 6.3 years; immediate loading associated with higher survival than delayed loading; sinusitis prevalence 14.2%.
Limitations: Pooled data across systems and techniques; not specific to one manufacturer.
Ceramic (zirconia) implants
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis
Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants
Padhye NM et al. · Clin Oral Investig · 2023 · PubMed 37740825 · DOI
What it found: Compares zirconia with titanium implants across published studies; see the review for outcome-specific results.
Limitations: Smaller and shorter evidence base for zirconia than for titanium.
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Zirconia versus titanium dental implants: meta-analysis of randomised trials
Morena D et al. · J Clin Med · 2024 · PubMed 39124755 · DOI
What it found: Pools randomised trials comparing zirconia and titanium implants; see the review for endpoint-specific findings.
Limitations: Limited number of RCTs; relatively short follow-up.
Loading & immediacy
Consensus / guidelineITI consensus report
Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Implant placement and loading protocols
Morton D et al. · Clin Oral Implants Res · 2023 · PubMed 37750529 · DOI
What it found: Sets out when immediate placement and loading protocols may be considered, based on clinical factors such as primary stability, site and restoration.
Limitations: Consensus statements reflect the evidence available at the time of the workshop.
Maintenance & peri-implant health
Consensus / guidelineS3-level clinical practice guideline
Prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases — EFP S3 guideline
Herrera D et al. · J Clin Periodontol · 2023 · PubMed 37271498 · DOI
What it found: Recommends prevention through oral hygiene, regular supportive care and management of risk factors such as smoking and a history of periodontitis.
Limitations: Guideline; recommendations graded by strength of evidence.
Connections
Systematic reviewSystematic review and meta-analysis (45,347 implants)
Implant-abutment connections, survival and marginal bone change
Schoenbaum TR et al. · Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants · 2023 · PubMed 37436948 · DOI
What it found: Compares connection types across a large body of implant data for survival and marginal bone change.
Limitations: Heterogeneous studies; connection type is one of many variables.
Short implants
Systematic reviewSystematic review of RCTs with meta-analysis
Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10 mm implants in different clinical scenarios
Ravidà A et al. · J Clin Periodontol · 2024 · PubMed 38764386 · DOI
What it found: Compares short implants with longer implants (often combined with bone augmentation) across clinical scenarios, with quality-of-evidence grading.
Limitations: Results differ by scenario; see the review for details.
Summaries are based on the published abstracts and were written by our editorial team; clinical review is pending. Funding and conflicts of interest are reported in the original papers.
