The advent of NobelActive represented a major breakthrough in implant design. Today, over a decade later, a wealth of evidence proves it to be a triumph of applied biotechnology.
It is the leading, most prominent implant solution in Nobel Biocare’s extensive and diverse range of implants. Its name: NobelActive.
To date, 42 clinical studies have evaluated over 14,300 NobelActive implants involving over 2,600 patients—and this count only includes studies that examined a minimum of ten NobelActive implants followed-up for more than one-year.
Count on good primary stability
The infographics highlight just a few of the many studies that have shown NobelActive can accomplish good primary stability in demanding situations.
The reverse-cutting flutes with drilling blades on the apex enable the adjustment of the implant position during placement for an optimized restorative orientation, particularly in extraction sites.
Furthermore, internal conical connection with hexagonal inter-locking offers high mechanical strength. Given such applicability, NobelActive’s mean implant survival rate of 98.5%—in studies with up to, and including, 5 years of follow-up—is all the more impressive.
Count on excellent esthetics
Studies show1 that NobelActive preserves the critical marginal bone and soft tissue over time for natural-looking esthetics. Its back-tapered collar—together with a strong conical connection and built-in platform shifting—can aid crestal-bone and soft-tissue preservation.
In the end, of course, it’s all about the final results; and in terms of esthetics, self-esteem, speech, sense and function, patients treated with NobelActive implants have given high marks to its use from pre-treatment, to prosthetic delivery, all the way through three-year follow-up.
More to explore
- Babbush CA, Brokloff J, A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of 1001 Consecutively Placed NobelActive Implants, Implant Dent. 2012 Feb;21:28-35, DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182344fce Read on PubMed
Cosyn J, Eghbali A, Hermans A, et al. A 5-year prospective study on single immediate implants in the aesthetic zone J Clin Periodontol 2016;43(8):702-709. Read on PubMed
Gultekin BA, Gultekin P, Leblebicioglu B, Basegmez C, Yalcin S. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone loss and stability in two types of submerged dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2013;28(3):815-23 Read on PubMed
Irinakis T, Wiebe C. Initial torque stability of a new bone condensing dental implant. A cohort study of 140 consecutively placed implants. J Oral Implantol 2009;35(6):277-82. Read on PubMed
Irinakis T, Wiebe C. Clinical evaluation of the NobelActive implant system; a case series of 107 consecutively placed implants and a review of the implant features. J Oral Implantol. 2009;35:283-88 Read on PubMed
Jemt T, Regerenation of Gingival Papillae After Single-Implant Treatment. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1997;17:327–333 Read on PubMed
Karl M, Irastorza- Landa A Does implant affect primary stability in extraction sites. Quintessence Int 2009 48(3): 219-224. Read on PubMed
Kielbassa AM, Martinez-de Fuentes R, Goldstein M, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: interim one-year results. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 May; 101:293-305 Kolinski M, et al. Clin Oral Investig 2018; doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2329-2. Read on PubMed
Kolinski ML, Cherry JE, McAllister BS, Parrish KD, Pumphrey DW, Schroering RL. Evaluation of a variable-thread tapered implant in extraction sites with immediate temporization: A 3-year multi-center clinical study. J Periodontol. 2014;85(3):386-94 Read on PubMed
Polizzi G, Cecchini P, Pasini E. 6-year retrospective analysis of variable-thread tapered implants placed in demanding situations. Clin Oral Impl Res 2017;28:229.
Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Marchetti M, Scarfo B, Esposito M. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(3):229-42. Read on PubMed