Science First
Volume 5, Issue 1
2018NobelActive®
Over 10 years of clinical experienceCoverNobelActive is an implant like no other. The back-tapered
coronal design of NobelActive is designed to optimizebone and soft tissue volume for natural-looking esthetics.
This is highlighted in the image in the foreground and theleft inset. The right inset image focuses on a mesenchymal
stem cell adhered to the proven TiUnite® implant surface.
The background image shows the 3D mesh of the uppersurface fading into a 2D outline illustration, combinedwith a NobelActive rendering focusing on the upper partof the implant.

Contents

NobelActive
Over ten years of clinical experience with NobelActive® 4
Scientific evidence backs NobelActive® implants
5
Key studies
6
Clinical cases
9
Overview of studies
12
References
15

NobelActive

Over ten years of clinical experience
with NobelActive®
The innovation of NobelActive represented a breakthrough in implant design, harmonizing biomedical engineeringexpertise with the clinical needs and the wisdom of clinicians. NobelActive’s expanding tapered implant bodycondenses bone gradually while the apex with drilling blades enables a smaller osteotomy. These features help
to achieve good primary stability in demanding situations, such as soft bone or extraction sockets.
Perfect harmony of drilling protocol, geometric design
and implant surface
The NobelActive surgical protocol and implant design are
designed to provide good primary stability and support
immediate loading. Reverse-cutting flutes with drilling bladeson the apex enable experienced clinicians to adjust the
implant position during placement for an optimized restorativeorientation,
particularly in extraction sites. NobelActive’s
6patented back-tapered collar, together with the strong conical5
connection
and built-in platform shifting, can aid in preservation of soft tissue and marginal bone.1, 2, 3, 4Good primary stability in demanding situations,such as soft bone or extraction sockets

4

Number of studies

The3 osteoconductive properties of NobelActive’s TiUnite
surface, supporting fast apposition of newly formed bone,2
helps ensure that good stability achieved at implant insertion
can1 be maintained throughout the critical healing phase.
Clinically, this relationship between the osteoconductive effect0of theTiUnitesurface–0.21 implant–0.41stability–0.61in–0.81 to with
> –0.91
0 to 3.0
0 to –0.2 andtototo patients
–0.40
–0.60
–0.80
–0.90 *et al,(bone gain) soft bone
predominantly
was confirmed
by Glauser
5 bone level change [mm]Mean marginal
with Brånemark IV implants.

Science First
CC – the tight connection
NobelActive’s expanding tapered implant body condenses bone gradually while the apex withdrilling blades enables a smaller osteotomy.

Good stability in the critical healing phase allows for
Immediate Function
7000

100%

TiUniteMachined surface

No bacterial leakage with
Nobel Biocare’s conical connection

Resonance frequency analysis [Hz]6800

NobelActive with Snappy Abutment

6600

Conical connections showed
less bacterial leakage
than flat connections.

6400

6200

6000
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time after implantation [months]
Higher stability with immediately loaded TiUnite surface implants (external hexagonal
connection) than with the same implants with machined surface in the posterior maxilla.5

The conical connection of NobelActive seems to have an
mmadvantageagainstleakage. Conicalconnection
implants,
8
16
4
1-year3-yearweeks weeks months
after loading
after loading
includingNobel Biocare’s conical connection, showed lower
0bacterialleakage compared to flat connections, in an1
in-vitro model.6
201-yearafter loading

3-yearafter loading

41
2

82.5%

tight

tight

Conical connections

Flat connections

Bacterial leakage with:
Osstem GSII with FreeForm ST abutment

Bacterial leakage with:
Camlog® Root Line J-series with Esthomic® abutment
Dentsply® XiVE® S plus with EstheticBase abutment™

The
included
implants
with Snappy
Abutment
showed no
Zipprich
H, Miatke S,NobelActive
Hmaidouch R, LauerConical
HC. A New Connection
Experimental Designfor Bacterial Microleakage
Investigation
at the Implant-Abutment
Interface:
An In Vitro Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac
leakagein this model.6 Implants. 2016 Jan-Feb;31(1):37-44.

Vertical Marginal Bone Loss (VMBL)
8
16
4
weeks weeks months

97.5%

Horizontal Marginal Bone Loss (HMBL)

Bacterial leakage test after
controlled dynamic loading(25 to 200 N)

With conical connection (n=5 each): Dentsply® OsseoSpeed™,
Dentsply® Ankylos® C/X, Dentsply® Ankylos® Plus, Nobel Biocare
NobelActive RP, Osstem™ GSII, Straumann® Bone Level RC,
Straumann® Standard Plus
With flat connection (n=5 each): Bego Semados® RI, Biomet 3i®
Certain®, Bredent™ Medical blueSKY™, Camlog® Root Line J-series,
Camlog® Screw Line K-Series (with two different abutments),
Dentsply® Xive® S plus

NobelActive

Scientific evidence backs NobelActive® implants

In the more than 10 years since its introduction to the market, over 14,300 NobelActive implants in over
2,600 patients have been clinically evaluated in 41 clinical studies A (see tables on pages 12 to 14).
Key findingsB of clinical studies with NobelActive are:–– Studies reporting mean marginal bone level change with
NobelActive implants show low bone remodeling in
the healing phase followed by stable or increasingbone levels.1, 2, 3, 7, 8–– After up to 6.7 years of function, NobelActive shows
excellent hard- and soft-tissue outcomes and 100 %survival rate.9–– The implant design and conical connection with built-in
platform shifting result in less crestal bone change
than a comparable implant without these features.2, 3–– Papilla size significantly improves during the first year,
and from implant insertion until 3 and 5 years.1, 7–– The unique implant design ensures good primarystability10 even in soft bone and fresh extraction
sockets.1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12–– NobelActive is a reliable implant for Immediate Function
protocols,1, 4, 11 as well as challenging cases such as severely
atrophic maxilla.13, 14–– NobelActive is successful with full-arch restorations
including the All-on-4® treatment concept.14, 15, 16
Twenty-two studies with 1 to 5 years’ follow-up have evaluated bone level change with NobelActive implants. No study
with a minimum of 1-year and up to 5-years of follow-up hada mean bone remodeling of over −0.89 mm.17, 18

NobelActive in patients with limited residual bone orinter-dental space
The design of NobelActive allows its insertion in difficult
situations, e.g. in patients with limited residual bone orinter-dental space.
In a retrospective study to evaluate the clinical performance of
153 NobelActive implants placed in a tilted manner in fresh
extraction sockets and immediately restored with Multi-unit
Abutments, the survival rate was 99.3 % at 3-year
follow‑up.19 Abutment angulation and implant diameter had
no impact on mean marginal bone remodeling, which was–0.68 mm ± 1.2 mm after 3 years.19
NobelActive 3.0 implants in the esthetic zone allow clinicians
to restore lateral maxillary incisors and lateral and central
mandibular incisors immediately, with a high level of survival.
In a recent publication by Kolinski and coworkers,20 interim
1-year results of a 5-year study with 82 NobelActive
3.0 implants in the esthetic zone were reported. Implantsurvival was 96.7 % and no implants fractured. Bone levels
were stable with only –0.57 mm remodeling from insertion to
6 months, and –0.25 mm from insertion to 1-year follow-up.
Pink esthetic scores significantly improved from 6.3 ± 0.4 at
pre-treatment, to 8.5 ± 2.1 after placement of the definitive
prosthesis, and to 10.5 ± 2.5 at 1 year. This further speaks tothe crucial interrelationship between implant surface, drill
protocols and geometrical design.

Studies report mean marginal bone level change from
implant insertion with NobelActive implants
65

Number of studies

4
3
2
1
0

0 to 3.0
0 to –0.2(bone gain)–0.21 to–0.40

–0.41 to–0.60

–0.61 to–0.80

–0.81 to–0.90 *

> –0.91

Mean marginal bone level change [mm]* Excludes a single study that evaluated a predecessor NobelActive implant that was notmade commercially available, which had a slightly different connection and back-taper.
A Only peer-reviewed publications with minimum of 10 implants and minimum one-year follow-up. Meeting abstracts, reviews, single case reports, technique descriptions,7000
andanimal and in-vitro tests are excluded.
B Note: Findings may have been reported in clinical studies presented
as conference abstracts.
TiUniteMachined surface
alysis [Hz]

6800

6600

5

NobelActive

Key studies
Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled,
split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic
interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles
Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK
Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7(1):47–61.

Ø 3.9

Ø 4.1

IC
IAC
BC

Ø 4.3

Ø 4.0

Clinical view of the two investigated implant designs.
Test group

Control group

Diagrams showing the measurement locations utilized in thisinvestigation:
Vertical marginal bone loss (VMBL) = the distance from the mostcoronal margin of the implant collar (IC) and the top of the bone
crest (BC)Horizontal marginal bone loss (HVBL) = the distance from theinternal aspect of the socket wall at the level of the alveolar crest(IAC) to the implant surface (I).

Characteristics of the two different implant designs
and connections used in this study

Periapical radiographs after 1 year in function:(a) NobelSpeedy Groovy implant (control group);(b) NobelActive implant (test group)abPeriapical radiographs after 3 years in function:(a) NobelSpeedy Groovy implant (control group);(b) NobelActive implant (test group)a

Copyright © 2014 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.

6

b

7000

NobelActive

TiUniteMachined surface
Resonance frequency analysis [Hz]

6800

6600

6400

6200

6000
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time after implantation [months]

mm

8
16
4
weeks weeks months

1-yearafter loading

3-yearafter loading

0
1
2

Vertical Marginal Bone Loss (VMBL)

0

8
16
4
weeks weeks months

1-yearafter loading

3-yearafter loadinga1
2

Horizontal Marginal Bone Loss (HMBL)
NobelActive
NobelSpeedy GroovymmGraph showing the vertical and horizontal marginal bone loss from implant insertion to
3-year follow-up of all implantsb
Intraoral photographs after 3 years in function:(a) NobelSpeedy Groovy implant (control group);(b) NobelActive implant (test group).

Original abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomesof two implant designs with different prosthetic interfaces andneck configurations.
Materials and methods: Thirty-four partially edentate patientsrandomly received at least one NobelActive implant (Nobel
Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden) with back-tapered collar, internal
conical connection and platform shifting design, and one
NobelSpeedy implant (Nobel Biocare) with external hexagon
and flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface according to a
split-mouth design. Follow-up continued to 3 years’ postloading. The primary outcome measures were the success ratesof the implants and prostheses, and the occurrence of any
surgical and prosthetic complications during the entire followup. Secondary outcome measures were: horizontal and verticalperi-implant marginal bone level (MBL) changes, resonancefrequency analysis values at implant placement and loading(4 months), sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and plaque score (PS).
Results: No drop-out occurred. No implants and prostheses
failures were observed to the 3-year follow-up. MBL changes
were statistically significant different with better results for theNobelActive implants for both horizontal and verticalmeasurements (p = 0.000). After 3 years post-loading, theNobelActive implants underwent a mean vertical bone
resorption of 0.66 mm, compared with 1.25 mm for theNobelSpeedy Groovy implants (p = 0.000); the mean horizontalbone resorption was 0.19 mm for the NobelActive implants and0.60 mm for the NobelSpeedy Groovy implants (p = 0.000).
A high ISQ value was found for both implants, and nostatistically significant difference was found for ISQ mean values
between interventions (p = 0.941 at baseline; p = 0.454 at
implant–abutment connection; p = 0.120 at prosthesis delivery).
All implants showed good periodontal health at the 3-year-infunction visit, with no significant differences between groups.
Conclusion: The results of this research suggest that inwell-maintained patients, the MBL changes could be affectedby the different implant design. After 4 months of unloaded
healing, as well as after 3 years in function, both implants
provided good results, however vertical and horizontal boneloss had statistically significant differences between the twogroups (difference of 0.58 ± 0.10 mm for the vertical MBL,
and 0.4 ± 0.05 mm for the horizontal MBL), with lower values
in the NobelActive implants, compared to the NobelSpeedy
Groovy implants.

Copyright © 2014 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.

7

NobelActive

Evaluation of a variable-thread tapered implant in extraction sites withimmediate temporization: a 3-year multi-center clinical study
Kolinski ML, Cherry JE, McAllister BS, Parrish KD, Pumphrey DW, Schroering RL
J Periodontol 2014;85(3):386–394.

100%

90%

Visual analog scale

80%

70%

Self esteem
Function
Esthetics
Sense
Speech60%50%Pretreatment

Implant
insertion

Prosthetic
delivery

1 year

2 years

3 years

Signiﬁcant improvements in patient self-ratings right after implant insertion
and at delivery of the ﬁnal prosthesis.

Summary of the study
Kolinski et al. (2014) report excellent results: high CSR, stablebone levels, good soft tissue health and patient satisfaction
using NobelActive implants. A total of 60 implants wereplaced in 55 patients at 6 centers, all in extraction sites andsubjected to Immediate Function. Patients requiring majorbone augmentations were excluded, while minor
augmentations were permitted. CSR after 3 years was 98.3 %.
Bone levels were exceptionally stable: Bone remodeling ofa mere –0.2 mm during the first 6 months quickly stabilized
and showed even a non-significant bone gain of 0.3 mm at
3 years. Papilla scores increased significantly (p < 0.001) from
insertion to 3-year follow-up, with most of the increase
occurring during the first year.

8

The results on quality of life are also noteworthy, withsignificant improvements in patient self-ratings on esthetics,
self-esteem, function, sense and speech. The authors
therefore conclude that NobelActive can be used safely andeffectively under demanding conditions such as immediate
tooth replacement in extraction sites – not only with regards
to CSR and hard- and soft-tissue health, but also in terms ofpatient satisfaction.

NobelActive

Clinical cases

Excellent esthetic outcome at 8-year follow-up with immediate temporization
on a NobelActive implant

Clinical situation before treatment.

Clinical view of temporary after surgery (immediateprovisionalization).

Radiograph showing
temporary after surgery.

Clinical view of soft tissue before finalization.

Radiograph showing
temporary after
3 months.

Zirconia abutment in situ.

Screw-retained crownClinical view following finalization.

Radiograph following
finalization.

Excellent esthetic outcome at 8 years’ follow-up

Radiograph at 8 years’
follow-up

Images courtesy of Dr. Giacomo Fabbri, Italy.

9NobelActive

NobelActive supporting hard and soft tissue long-term
Immediate implant placement in a fresh extraction socket ofa NobelActive RP implant 4.3 mm × 13 mm. Socket
augmentation was performed, using xenograft andautogenous soft tissue grafting harvested from the tuberosity

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Radiological outcome with NobelActive at 1-year follow-up, showing stable bone.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Radiological outcome with NobelActive at 3-year follow-up, showing stable bone.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Radiological outcome with NobelActive at 5-year follow-up, showing stable bone.

10

area, to close the socket and increase the amount of soft
tissue at the recipient site. A lithium disilicate crown was
cemented onto an anatomically shaped zirconia abutment.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Radiological outcome with NobelActive at 7-year follow-up, showing stable bone.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Radiological outcome with NobelActive at 9.5-year follow-up, showing bone overgrowth overtime onto the implant platform.

NobelActive

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Clinical outcome with NobelActive at 1-year follow-up, showing healthy papilla.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Clinical outcome with NobelActive at 3-year follow-up, showing healthy papilla.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Clinical outcome with NobelActive at 7-year follow-up, showing healthy papilla.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Clinical outcome with NobelActive at 9.5-year follow-up.

Image courtesy of Professor Alessandro Pozzi, Italy.

Clinical outcome with NobelActive at 5-year follow-up, showing healthy papilla.

11NobelActive

Overview of studies

The following overview includes clinical studies using NobelActive implants. The studies are ordered byfollow-up time.
Only peer-reviewed publications are listed. Meeting abstracts, reviews, single case reports, technique descriptions, and animal
and in-vitro tests are excluded. The total number of implants and patients included in this overview is over 14,300 and 2,600
respectively, with mean implant survival rate of 98.5 %.A
Marginal bone level change is reported only for studies where implant level baseline is presented. For more information onthese studies visit PubMed at pubmed.gov.

Reference

Mean
follow-up
time[years] B

Study type

Indication/
study focus

No. ofimplants C

No. ofpatients

Implant
survival
rate [%]

Mean change
in marginal
bone level(SD) [mm]Jensen et al.,201614

5

Retrospective

Fully edentulous, Maxilla, Immediate loading

158

39

94.9 DNR

Li et al., 201721

5

Prospective

Fully edentulous, Maxilla & mandible,
Extraction, All-on-4

28

NR

100 D

NR

Cosyn et al.,
20167

5

Prospective

Single tooth, Anterior & posterior, Maxilla,
Cement & screw, Extraction,
Immediate loading

22

22

94.1D

−0.19 (0.3)

Passos et al.,201623

5

Retrospective

Single tooth, Anterior, Maxilla & mandible

12

NR

100 D

NR

Babbush, 201524

4.5

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Screw,
Healed & extraction, All-on-4

5002

NR

98.1

NR

Pozzi et al.,201525

4.1

Prospective

Fully edentulous, Maxilla & mandible, Screw, Healed,
Immediate loading, Guided surgery

62

NR

100

NR

Pozzi and Moy,
2014 26

3.7

Prospective

Partially edentulous, Maxilla, Posterior,
Immediate loading, Guided surgery

37

NR

97.3

NR

Pozzi et al.,201527

3.5

Retrospective

Fully edentulous, Maxilla & mandible,
Healed & extraction, Immediate loading,
Guided surgery

85

NR

100 D

NR

Babbush et al.,2014 28

3.4

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Cement & screw, Fully edentulous,
Healed & extraction, All-on-4

60

15

98.3 DNR

Demanet et al.,2011293

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Healed & extraction, 1-stage & 2-stage

466

172

99.1

−0.39 (NR)De Santis et al.,2016 30

3

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,Screw, 2-stage, Delayed loading

144

62

98.6

−0.70 (0.5)

Arnhart et al.,2012173

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Cement & screw, Healed, 1-stage,
Immediate loading

117

117

96 D

−0.89 (1.7) D

3

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Extraction, 1-stage, Immediate loading

60

55

98.3

+0.30 (1.6)

Pozzi et al., 2014 2 3

Prospective

Mandible, Posterior, Cement, Single-tooth,
Healed, 2-stage, Early loading

44

34

100

−0.67 (0.4)

Cosyn et al.,201322

Kielbassa et al.,200918Kolinski et al.,20141
McAllister et al.,201231
Pozzi et al.,2014 3212

NobelActive

Reference

Mean
follow-up
time[years] B

Study type

Indication/
study focus

No. ofimplants C

No. ofpatients

Implant
survival
rate [%]

Mean change
in marginal
bone level(SD) [mm]Chrcanovic et al.,2018 33

2.9

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,Partially & fully edentulous

123

NR

NR

NR

Polizzi et al.,201611

2.4

Retrospective

Maxilla, Anterior & posterior, Healed & extraction,
Immediate loading, Guided-Surgery

160

27

99.4

−0.58 (0.98)

De Vico et al.,2011342.1

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction, 1-stage,
Immediate loading, Guided surgery, All-on-4

140

35

100

−0.72 @ 1 year
(NR) D

Babbush and
Brokloff, 201215

2

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Healed & extraction, 1-stage & 2-stage

1001

293

97.4

NR

Drago, 2016 36

2Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction, 1-stage,
Immediate loading

774

130

99.5

NR

Drago, 201737

2

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction,
Immediate loading, All-on-4

770

128

99.5

NR

Drago, 2016 38

2

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction, 1-stage,
Immediate loading, All-on-4

766

129

99.5

NR

Orentlicher et al.,2014 392

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Healed & extraction, Guided surgery

121

NR

95.9

NR

Ganeles et al.,
20178

2

Prospective

Single-arm, single center, Maxilla,
Anterior & posterior, Single-tooth, Extraction, 1-stage

15

15

100

+0.83 (2.73)

Aires and Berger,
2016 40

1.6

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction,
1-stage & 2-stage, Guided surgery

1657

228

99.4

NR

Younes et al.,2016 41

1.6

Retrospective

Maxilla, Posterior, Cement & screw, 1-stage & 2-stage

165

57

98.2 DNR

Babbush et al.,2016 421.3

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction, 1-stage,
Immediate loading, All-on-4

856

169

99.8

−0.14 (0.6)

MacLean et al.,2016 43

1.3

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior, Cement & screw,Single-tooth, Healed & extraction, 1-stage & 2-stage

44

34

96.4

−0.36 (0.9)

Gultekin et al.,2013 3

1.25

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Cement,
Partially edentulous, Healed, 2-stage,
Delayed loading, Guided surgery

43

NR

100

−0.35 (0.1)

Babbush and
Kanawati,
2015 44

1.0

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Healed & extraction

262

65

98.1

NR

Yamada et al.,2015 4

1

Prospective

Maxilla, Anterior & posterior, Screw, Fully edentulous,
Healed, 1-stage, Immediate loading, Guided surgery

290

50

98.6

−0.32 (0.4)

Babbush et al.,201313

1

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Fully edentulous, Healed & extraction,
1-stage & 2-stage

227

53

98.7

NR

Esposito et al.,201745

1

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Single-tooth, Immediate loading,
Immediate-delayed & delayed loading

210

210

95.7

−0.28 (0.16) D

Galindo andButura, 201246

1

Retrospective

Mandible, Anterior & posterior, Screw,
Fully edentulous, Mixed, 1-stage, Immediate loading,
Guided surgery, All-on-4

60

183

100 D

≤−1.0 (NR)

Babbush et al.,20113513

NobelActive

Reference

Mean
follow-up
time[years] B

Study type

Indication/
study focus

No. ofimplants C

No. ofpatients

Implant
survival
rate [%]

Mean change
in marginal
bone level(SD) [mm]Cosyn et al.,2015 47

1

Prospective

Maxilla, Anterior & posterior, Screw, Single-tooth,
Healed, 1-stage, Delayed loading

47

47

100

−0.48 (0.5)

Slagter et al.,2015 48

1

Prospective

Maxilla, Anterior & posterior, Cement & screw,Single-tooth, Extraction, 1-stage & 2-stage

40

40

100

−0.70 (NR) D

Slagter et al.,2016 49

1

Prospective

Maxilla, Anterior, Cement & screw, Single-tooth,
Healed & extraction, 2-stage, Delayed loading

40

40

100

−0.53 (NR) D

Cristalli et al.,2015501

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior, Cement,
Single-tooth, Extraction, 1-stage, Immediate loading

25

24

92

−0.33 (NR) D

Rokn et al.,201551

1

Prospective

Mandible, Posterior, Single-tooth

25

NR

100 D

−0.68 (0.5)

Antoun et al.,201752

1

Retrospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior & posterior,
Cement & screw, Single-tooth,
Fully & partially edentulous, 1-stage & 2-stage,
Immediate loading, Early & delayed loading

134

NR

97.0

NR

Zuiderveld et al.,2018 53

1

Retrospective

Maxilla, Anterior, Screw, Single-tooth, Extraction,
1-stage, Immediate loading

60

60

96.7

−0.01 D

Kolinski et al.,2018 20

1

Prospective

Maxilla & mandible, Anterior, Cement & screw,Single-tooth, Healed & Extraction, Immediate loading

82

71

96.7

−0.25

Source: Nobel Biocare data on file (REP 134625/000/05), updated with Nobel Biocare database and PubMed search results for publications in 2016 – February 2018.
A: Arithmetic mean weighted by number of initially placed implants (implant survival rate).
B: 	Where the mean follow-up time was not available the reported follow-up time was used (minimum one-year follow-up). Last radiological follow-up for mean marginal bone level change
may differ from the overall study follow-up.
C: Minimum 10 implants.
D: The percentage of surviving implants/prostheses or MBL was calculated.
NR: Not reported.

14

NobelActive

References

1. Kolinski ML, Cherry JE, McAllister BS, et al. Evaluation of a variable-thread tapered
implant in extraction sites with immediate temporization: a 3-year multi-center clinicalstudy. J Periodontol 2014;85(3):386–394.

23. Passos SP, Linke B, Larjava H, French D. Performance of zirconia abutments for
implant-supported single-tooth crowns in esthetic areas: a retrospective study up to
12-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(1):47–54.

2. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled,
split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design inpartially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7(1):47–61.

24. Babbush CA. A multi-center review of 53,802 implants utilized in over 13,000 jaws for
All-On-4 reconstruction. AO 2015;108(4):28–31.

3. 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):815–823.
4. Yamada J, Kori H, Tsukiyama Y, et al. Immediate loading of complete-arch fixed
prostheses for edentulous maxillae after flapless guided implant placement: a 1-year
prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30(1):184–193.

25. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Barlattani A. Monolithic lithium disilicate full-contour crowns bonded
on CAD/CAM zirconia complete-arch implant bridges with 3 to 5 years of follow-up. J Oral
Implantol 2015;41(3):450–458.
26. Pozzi A, Moy PK. Minimally invasive transcrestal guided sinus lift (TGSL): a clinicalprospective proof-of-concept cohort study up to 52 months. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
2014;16(4):582–593.

5. Glauser R, Portmann M, Ruhstaller P, et al. Stability measurements of immediately loaded
machined and oxidized implants in the posterior maxilla. A comparative clinical study
using resonance frequency analysis. Appl Osseointegrat Res 2001;2:27–29.

27. Pozzi A, Holst S, Fabbri G, Tallarico M. Clinical reliability of CAD/CAM cross-arch zirconia
bridges on immediately loaded implants placed with computer-assisted/template-guided
surgery: a retrospective study with a follow-up between 3 and 5 years. Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res 2015;17(Suppl 1):e86–e96.

6. Zipprich H, Miatke S, Hmaidouch R, Lauer HC. A new experimental design for bacterial
microleakage investigation at the implant-abutment interface: an in vitro study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(1):37–44.

28. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Kotsakis GA, Hinrichs JE. Patient-related and financial
outcomes analysis of conventional full-arch rehabilitation versus the All-on-4 Concept:
a cohort study. Implant Dent 2014;23(2):218–224.

7. 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.

29. Demanet M, Merheb J, Simons WF, Leroy R, Quirynen M. The outcome of a novel tapered
implant in a private practice limited to Periodontology. Le Dentiste 2011;426:22–25.

8. Ganeles J, Norkin FJ, Zfaz S. Single-tooth implant restorations in fresh extraction socketsof the maxillary esthetic zone: two-year results of a prospective cohort study. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017;37(2):e154–e162.

30. De Santis D, Cucchi A, Rigoni G, Longhi C, Nocini PF. Relationship between primarystability and crestal bone loss of implants placed with high insertion torque: a 3-year
prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(5):1126–1134.

9. 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.

31. McAllister BS, Cherry JE, Kolinski ML, et al. Two-year evaluation of a variable-threadtapered implant in extraction sites with immediate temporization: a multicenter clinical
trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(3):611–618.

10. Karl M, Irastorza-Landa A. Does implant design affect primary stability in extraction sites?
Quintessence Int 2017;48(3):219–224.
11. Polizzi G, Cantoni T, Pasini E, Tallarico M. Immediate loading of variable-thread expanding
tapered-body implants placed into maxillary post-extraction or healed sites using a guided
surgery approach: An up-to-five-year retrospective analysis. J Oral Science Rehabilitation
2016;2(3):50–60.
12. 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(6):283–288.
13. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Brokloff J. A new approach to the all-on-four treatment concept
using narrow platform NobelActive implants. J Oral Implantol 2013;39(3):314–325.
14. Jensen OT, Ringeman JL, Adams MW, Gregory N. Reduced arch length as a factor for
four implant immediate function in the maxilla: A technical note and report of 39 patients
followed for 5 years. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74(12):2379–2384.
15. Babbush CA, Brokloff J. A single-center retrospective analysis of 1001 consecutively
placed NobelActive implants. Implant Dent 2012;21(1):28–35.
16. Todisco M. All-on-4 with NobelActive implants: 3-year clinical and radiological follow-up.
Clin Oral Impl Res 2016;27(Suppl 13):225.
17. Arnhart C, Kielbassa AM, Martinez-de Fuentes R, et al. Comparison of variable-threadtapered implant designs to a standard tapered implant design after immediate loading.
A 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012;5(2):123–136.
18. 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;101(5):293–305.
19. Villa R, Villa G, Del Fabbro M. OnlyOne: a novel technique for immediate post-extraction
screw-retained partial and full-arch rehabilitation. A 3-year follow-up retro-spective clinicalstudy. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2018 (in press).
20. Kolinski M, Hess P, Leziy S, et al. Immediate provisionalization in the esthetic zone: 1-year
interim results from a prospective single-cohort multicenter study evaluating 3.0-mmdiameter tapered implants. Clin Oral Investig 2018; doi:10.1007/s00784-017-2329-2.
21. Li S, Di P, Zhang Y, Lin Y. Immediate implant and rehabilitation based on All-on-4 concept
in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis: A medium-term prospective study.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(3):559–571.
22. Cosyn J, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R. Soft tissue preservation and pink aesthetics aroundsingle immediate implant restorations: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat
Res 2013;15(6):847–857.

32. Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Tallarico M, Barlattani A. Clinical and radiological outcomes of two
implants with different prosthetic interfaces and neck configurations: randomized,
controlled, split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(1):96–106.
33. Chrcanovic BR, Jenö K, Albrektsson T, et al. Factors influencing the fracture of dental
implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(1):58–67.
34. De Vico G, Bonino M, Spinelli D, et al. Rationale for tilted implants: FEA considerations
and clinical reports. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2011;4(3-4):23–33.
35. Babbush C, Kutsko G, Brokloff J. The All-on-Four Immediate Function treatment concept
with NobelActive implants – A retrospective study. J Oral Implantol 2011;37(4):431–445.
36. Drago C. Ratios of cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of definitive hybrid
full-arch, screw-retained prostheses: results of a clinical study. J Prosthodont 2016; doi:
10.1111/jopr.12519.
37. Drago C. Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of interim, acrylic resin,
full-arch screw-retained prostheses and their relationship to prosthetic complications.
J Prosthodont 2017;26(6):502–507.
38. Drago C. Frequency and type of prosthetic complications associated with interim,
immediately loaded full-arch prostheses: a 2-year retrospective chart review. J
Prosthodont 2016;25(6):433–439.
39. Orentlicher G, Horowitz A, Goldsmith D, et al. Cumulative survival rate of implants placed“fully guided” using CT-guided surgery: a 7-year retrospective study. Compend Contin
Educ Dent 2014;35(8):590–597.
40. Aires I, Berger J. Planning implant placement on 3D stereolithographic models appliedwith immediate loading of implant-supported hybrid prostheses after multiple extractions:a case series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(1):172–178.
41. Younes F, Eghbali A, De Troyer S, et al. Marginal and apical bone stability after staged
sinus floor augmentation using bone condensing implants with variable-thread design:
a two-dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45(9):1135–1141.
42. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Kotsakis GA. Marginal bone stability around tapered,platform-shifted implants placed with an immediately loaded four-implant-supported fixed
prosthetic concept: a cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(3):643–650.
43. MacLean S, Hermans M, Villata L, et al. A retrospective multicenter case series evaluating
a novel 3.0-mm expanding tapered body implant for the rehabilitation of missing incisors.
Quintessence Int 2016;47(4):297–306.

15

NobelActive

References

44. Babbush CA, Kanawati A. Clinical evaluation of 262 osseointegrated implants placed insites grafted with calcium phosphosilicate putty: a retrospective study. J Oral Implantol
2015;41(1):63–69.
45. Esposito M, Zucchelli G, Cannizzaro G, et al. Immediate, immediate-delayed (6 weeks)
and delayed (4 months) post-extractive single implants: 1-year post-loading data froma randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10(1):11–26.
46. Galindo DF, Butura CC. Immediately loaded mandibular fixed implant prostheses using the
all-on-four protocol: a report of 183 consecutively treated patients with 1 year of function
in definitive prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(3):628–33.
47. Cosyn J, Pollaris L, Van der Linden F, De Bruyn H. Minimally invasive single implant
treatment (M.I.S.I.T.) based on ridge preservation and contour augmentation in patientswith a high aesthetic risk profile: one-year results. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42(3):398–405.
48. Slagter KW, Meijer HJ, Bakker NA, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Feasibility of immediate
placement of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a 1-year randomized controlled
trial. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42(8):773–782.
49. Slagter KW, Meijer HJ, Bakker NA, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Immediate single-tooth
implant placement in bony defects in the esthetic zone: a 1-year randomized controlled
trial. J Periodontol 2016;87(6):619–629.
50. Cristalli MP, Marini R, La Monaca G, et al. Immediate loading of post-extractive single-tooth
implants: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(9):1070–1079.
51. Rokn AR, Badri S, Rasouli Ghahroudi AA, et al. Comparison of bone loss around boneplatform shift and non-bone platform shift implants after 12 months. J Dent (Tehran)2015;12(3):183–187.
52. Antoun H, Karouni M, Abitbol J, et al. A retrospective study on 1592 consecutively
performed operations in one private referral clinic. Part I: Early inflammation and early
implant failures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(3):404–412.
53. Zuiderveld EG, Meijer HJA, den Hartog L, et al. Effect of connective tissue grafting on
peri-implant tissue in single immediate implant sites: A RCT. J Clin Periodontol
2018;45(2):253–264.

16

Notes

nobelbiocare.com

85132 GB 1804 Printed in the EU © Nobel Biocare Services AG, 2018. All rights reserved. Osstem™ is a trademark of Osstem Group. Camlog® and Esthomic® are trademarks of Camlog Biotechnologies Group. Dentsply® and XiVE® are trademarks ofDentsply Group. Nobel Biocare, the Nobel Biocare logotype and all other trademarks are, if nothing else is stated or is evident from the context in a certain case, trademarks of Nobel Biocare. Please refer to nobelbiocare.com/trademarks for more
information. Product images are not necessarily to scale. Disclaimer: Some products may not be regulatory cleared/released for sale in all markets. Please contact the local Nobel Biocare sales office for current product assortment and availability.
For prescription use only. Caution: Federal (United States) law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a licensed dentist. See Instructions for Use for full prescribing information, including indications, contraindications, warnings and precautions.