Best Dental Implant Brands: Which One Is Right for You?

Why the Brand Question Has Two Answers

When patients start researching dental implants, one question comes up early, which is whether the brand of implant matters. The honest answer has two parts. The brand matters, because implant systems differ in how well they are engineered and documented. It is also rarely the variable that decides the outcome, because bone, gum health, surgical skill and planning weigh more once a system meets a certain standard.

Understanding why requires knowing what actually separates a well made implant from a poorly made one, and where brand reputation fits into that picture. A dental implant is a titanium or ceramic screw placed in the jawbone. Bone grows onto its surface during healing, a process called osseointegration, and once that bond has formed the implant carries a crown, a bridge or a full-arch prosthesis. Everything about the screw, from the metal it is made of to the texture of its surface and the way it connects to the parts above, influences how that bond forms and how it holds up over the years.

At Mosdent in Istanbul, the implant system chosen for a case is named in the written treatment plan, so its documentation can be checked. That practice reflects the view taken throughout this article. A brand name tells you little by itself. The specification behind the name and the published clinical data on that specification tell you much more, and they can be read and compared.

What Separates One Implant System From Another

Dental implants are precision medical devices. A titanium fixture has a surface treatment, a thread geometry, a connection type and a material specification, and each of these influences how it integrates with bone and how it performs in the long term. Manufacturers differ in how much they invest in each area.

Surface technology is the first. The texture and chemistry of the implant surface affect how quickly and reliably bone cells attach and grow around it. Most contemporary implants have a roughened surface, created by sandblasting, acid etching, anodising or laser treatment, and some manufacturers add a chemically active or hydrophilic finish intended to speed early healing.

Material quality is the second. Implant bodies are made from medical-grade titanium, titanium alloys or zirconia, each with controlled metallurgical specifications. A titanium-zirconium alloy, for example, allows a narrower implant to carry loads that would otherwise require a wider one.

Component precision is the third. The connection between the implant body and the abutment, the part that links the implant to the crown, must be manufactured to tolerances measured in microns. A poorly fitting connection allows bacteria to enter the gap and permits micro-movement, both of which can contribute to long-term problems.

Long-term clinical evidence is the fourth. Well documented systems carry survival data from independent clinical studies with follow-up of ten years or more. Component supply is closely related. Screws loosen and abutments occasionally fracture over the life of a restoration, and repair needs an original-specification part. A system with wide distribution and long production continuity makes that repair routine years later.

Once two systems both meet these standards, the differences between them become incremental. What then becomes decisive is the skill of the surgeon, the quality of the planning and the health of the surrounding tissue.

What Trials Show When Implant Types Are Compared

Direct comparisons between implant types support that view. A Cochrane review of randomised trials included 27 trials with 1512 participants and 3230 implants, comparing 38 different implant types over follow-up of one to 10 years (PubMed 25048469). On a per-participant basis it found no significant differences between implant types for implant failures, and the authors concluded that no particular type of implant had shown better long-term success than the others (PubMed 25048469). The review also found that implants with smoother, turned surfaces had a 20% reduction in the risk of peri-implantitis compared with rough surfaces three years after loading, while turned surfaces tended to fail early more often (PubMed 25048469).

Connection design shows a similar pattern. A network meta-analysis of randomised trials found that 12 months after loading, conical connections had lower marginal bone loss and fewer prosthetic complications than external hexagonal connections, while the connection type made no difference to implant survival or biological complications (PubMed 34776267). Design choices, in other words, leave their mark on intermediate outcomes such as bone level and prosthetic repairs more than on whether the implant survives.

Survival itself is high across contemporary systems. A systematic review of 18 prospective studies of modern roughened-surface implants estimated 10-year survival at the implant level at 96.4%, and a sensitivity analysis that accounted for patients lost to follow-up gave 93.2% (PubMed 30904559). At 20 years the evidence thins. Five retrospective studies covering 1440 implants reported survival of 88% (PubMed 39305362).

These pooled figures come from many systems together and are not reported brand by brand. They show what well documented implants achieve as a group, and they explain why follow-up care does not end after the first decade.

Straumann and Nobel Biocare Implant Systems

Straumann (Switzerland)

Straumann is a Swiss manufacturer with a long record of peer-reviewed clinical studies. Its SLA surface is sandblasted and acid-etched, and SLActive is a chemically active, hydrophilic version of the same surface intended to speed early bone attachment. The measured difference between the two is modest. A systematic review of six randomised trials with 326 implants found that SLActive implants had stability comparable to SLA implants over 12 weeks in the upper and lower jaws (PubMed 39775154). In a split-mouth trial of 80 narrow titanium-zirconium implants in 20 patients taking anticoagulants, no significant stability difference was found between the two surfaces at any time point, and survival at one year was 100% (PubMed 27539149).

Roxolid is Straumann's titanium-zirconium alloy, designed for narrow ridges where a standard diameter does not fit. A systematic review of nine clinical studies covering 922 implants in 607 patients reported survival of 98.4% at 1 year and 97.7% at 2 years for narrow titanium-zirconium implants, and noted that long-term data were still needed (PubMed 26852292). The bone level tapered implant combines a tapered body for primary stability with a connection at bone level. Straumann is the implant system most frequently used at Mosdent for primary implant cases, chosen for its surface science, clinical evidence and component range.

Nobel Biocare (Sweden and Switzerland)

Nobel Biocare grew out of Per-Ingvar Brånemark's research on osseointegration. NobelActive is a tapered implant with an aggressive thread for high primary stability, often used in soft bone and in immediate loading, where a temporary crown is fitted on the day of surgery. The company's name is closely linked with the All-on-4 full-arch restoration concept. In a long-term study of 471 patients with 1884 implants in the lower jaw, the All-on-4 concept showed prosthetic survival of 98.8% and implant survival of 93% up to 18 years (PubMed 30924309). Nobel Biocare systems are a preferred choice at Mosdent for All-on-4 and All-on-6 full-arch restorations.

Zimmer Biomet, Dentsply Sirona, BioHorizons and Osstem

Zimmer Biomet (USA)

Zimmer Biomet is a large medical device company whose dental division draws on its orthopaedic implant engineering. Its Tapered Screw-Vent implant has a self-tapping design for primary stability across varying bone densities, and its implant lines use a micro-textured surface treatment called MTX. The company also offers a broad range of prosthetic components, including PEEK and ceramic abutment options, which suits complex restorative cases.

Dentsply Sirona (USA and Germany)

Dentsply Sirona brings together two earlier dental companies, and its implant division includes the Ankylos and Astra Tech lines. Ankylos is known for its conical internal connection, which seals the joint between implant and abutment tightly. The trial evidence on conical connections, summarised above, links this design to less bone loss and fewer prosthetic complications in the first year compared with external hexagonal connections. The Astra Tech OsseoSpeed surface has a substantial body of independent clinical data.

BioHorizons (USA)

BioHorizons is known for its Laser-Lok collar, a laser-microtextured zone at the top of the implant intended to promote soft tissue attachment. In a randomised study of 77 patients with immediately loaded single implants, Laser-Lok implants showed a mean crestal bone loss of 0.49 mm at 2 years compared with 1.07 mm for implants without the collar, while survival was the same in both groups (PubMed 24396842). The Tapered Internal line suits immediate placement in appropriate cases.

Osstem (South Korea)

Osstem is a large Asian implant manufacturer that has expanded into European and Middle Eastern markets and holds ISO and CE certification. Its TS III SA system uses a sandblasted and acid-etched surface of the same type used by established European systems, and its wide distribution network makes prosthetic components widely available.

Specifications at a Glance and Why They Should Be Recorded

This table summarises the systems described above by origin, surface technology and the connection or indication each is documented for. It is a guide to what to read in a specification, and it does not rank the systems.

Recording the system in the treatment plan matters for a practical reason. An implant can remain in the mouth for decades, and the patient may need a repair far from the clinic that placed it. Every manufacturer uses its own connection geometry, so a replacement screw or abutment has to come from the same system. Without documentation, identifying the system from an X-ray alone is difficult. In a multicentre data set covering 25 implant systems from 10 manufacturers, the dental professionals who took part identified the system from radiographs with a mean accuracy of 23.5%, rising to 43.3% among dentists specialised in implantology (PubMed 37085970).

Asking which system will be used, what its surface is called, how long its published follow-up runs and how long its components remain available gives a patient a clear view of what is being placed.

Surgeon Experience, Planning and Tissue Health

Brand selection is one variable in an equation with several. Clinical research consistently identifies the following as equal or greater determinants of long-term success.

Implant placement is a surgical skill. The same implant placed by a surgeon with 50 cases of experience and by one with 2,000 cases will produce meaningfully different outcomes in primary stability, preservation of the surrounding bone, handling of anatomical structures and response to complications. Mosdent's oral and maxillofacial surgery team has extensive experience across standard, immediate-loading and full-arch cases, as well as advanced cases including zygomatic implants.

Planning shapes the surgery. Three-dimensional CBCT imaging maps the bone volume, locates the nerve canal and the sinus, and shows the position in which the implant will be well supported. Every implant case at Mosdent begins with CBCT assessment and digital treatment planning before any surgical decision is made.

Gum and bone health come before surgery. Active gum disease at the time of placement raises the risk of later problems around the implant. A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies found that a history of periodontitis was associated with a higher risk of implant failure, a greater incidence of peri-implantitis, with a risk ratio of 4.09, and more marginal bone loss (PubMed 38720611). Periodontal treatment therefore comes first in any patient with active disease. Adequate bone volume is also a prerequisite. Where bone is deficient, bone grafting or an advanced implant protocol may be needed before standard placement is possible.

Maintenance and General Health After Placement

Implants cannot decay, although the tissues around them can become inflamed. Peri-implant disease is common enough to plan for. A systematic review of its epidemiology estimated weighted mean prevalences of 43% for peri-implant mucositis, the reversible inflammation of the gum around an implant, and 22% for peri-implantitis, which involves bone loss, and the prevalence of peri-implantitis increased with the time the implant had been in function (PubMed 25495683). Regular professional maintenance, typically every six months, and a thorough home hygiene routine are the factors a patient can influence most directly in long-term implant health.

General health also plays a part. Smoking, uncontrolled diabetes and medications that affect bone metabolism, such as bisphosphonates, influence healing and long-term stability. A meta-analysis of 51 studies with more than 40,000 implants found that smoking was associated with a higher risk of implant failure, with a pooled relative risk of 1.92, and that radiotherapy carried a relative risk of 2.28 (PubMed 23940794). The same analysis found no clear effect of diabetes or osteoporosis and called for further study (PubMed 23940794).

These factors are assessed during the pre-treatment evaluation and managed as part of the overall plan. A patient who stops smoking before surgery, whose blood sugar is under control and whose medications have been reviewed gives any implant system a better starting point. The same applies after placement, when regular check-ups allow early signs of inflammation to be treated before bone is lost.

For this reason the conversation about brands sits alongside a conversation about habits and health. The choice of implant narrows one source of uncertainty, and the remaining sources are largely addressed by the patient and the clinical team together.

Which Implant Systems Mosdent Places and What Goes on Top

At Mosdent, Straumann and Nobel Biocare are the primary systems, with other CE-marked systems selected for specific clinical indications. The reasoning is straightforward. An implant treatment is a long-term investment in quality of life, and the fixture placed today may still be in function decades later. For All-on-4, All-on-6 or other full-arch restorations the stakes are higher still, because a small number of implants support an entire arch and the reliability of each one matters disproportionately. Patients can discuss their preferences, and the team explains its recommendation and the clinical reasoning behind it.

The implant is only one part of the final restoration. The crown or prosthetic arch is what the patient sees and chews with. At Mosdent, implant crowns and full-arch prosthetics are routinely made from zirconium, which combines a natural appearance with the strength that implant restorations require. For selected front-tooth cases, Emax ceramic may be considered.

When treatment includes cosmetic elements beyond the implant, such as a smile makeover, Hollywood smile design or teeth whitening of the remaining natural teeth, these are planned together with the implant work from the outset so that shade and shape match.

Straumann and Nobel Biocare have long published follow-up, while Dentsply Sirona, BioHorizons, Zimmer Biomet and Osstem each have their own documented indications. A system without published long-term data carries more uncertainty over a twenty-year horizon. If you are considering implant treatment, you can contact Mosdent to discuss which system suits your case and why.