MegaGen implants are made by MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd., a South Korean manufacturer founded in 2002 and headquartered in Daegu, where its main plant sits. The fixture body is commercially pure grade 4 titanium, not the grade 5 alloy often claimed for it, and three separate FDA 510(k) summaries state grade 4 for the fixture. The surface is XPEED®, a calcium-incorporated layer over a sandblasted and acid-etched base, and the connection is a 5-degree Morse taper the manufacturer calls Magic Five. The longest brand-specific follow-up reports 98.1% implant survival at four years (PubMed 29732018). No 10-year survival data and no brand-specific systematic review exist yet, and cost is driven by which product line, diameter and surface are used, by the number of stages and by whether grafting is needed.
- 01MegaGen is South Korean, founded 2002 in Daegu, with 41 FDA 510(k) records all filed from that address, the most recent cleared in January 2025.
- 02The fixture body is commercially pure grade 4 titanium. The Ti-6Al-4V alloy named in the same FDA documents is the abutment material, not the implant body.
- 03AnyRidge keeps the core diameter fixed and varies thread depth instead. The manufacturer states a Ø5.0 mm fixture can be seated in a 2.9 mm osteotomy in D4 bone.
- 04XPEED is not hydrophilic and this has been measured: contact angle 118.2 ± 1.91 degrees, with no statistically significant difference from SLA (PMC11173531).
- 05Longest brand-specific follow-up is four years at 98.1% survival (PubMed 29732018). There is no 10-year data and no systematic review for this brand.
Most patients meet the name MegaGen, or the product name AnyRidge, on a treatment quote rather than in a brochure. Search for either term in English and the first page is almost entirely manufacturer material and dental trade documents, at one point including the manufacturer's own staging subdomain. This page sets out what can be verified about the system from regulatory records, manufacturer technical documents and published clinical studies, and states plainly where the evidence stops.
/ Where MegaGen implants are made and who owns the company
MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Daegu, South Korea, where its principal manufacturing plant is located. The origin is verifiable outside the company's own marketing: the FDA 510(k) database holds 41 records filed by MegaGen, and the applicant address on those records is Daegu, Korea, including the most recent clearance dated 13 January 2025.
Ownership runs in an unusual direction for this category. MegaGen was not acquired; it was the acquirer. BIOLASE, the American dental laser manufacturer, states in its own corporate announcement that a new chapter in its history opened following its acquisition by MegaGen Implant, and names MegaGen founder Dr. Kwang Bum Park as chief executive. SEC EDGAR filings for BIOLASE, INC corroborate the timeline independently: a notification of delisting dated 6 September 2024, an 8-K on 1 October 2024 filed under Item 1.03 for bankruptcy or receivership, and no exchange listing today. MegaGen's own 2026 shareholding is not verifiable from a primary source because the company is not listed in the United States, so no percentage is quoted here.
For a patient the relevant consequence is supply continuity rather than corporate history. A manufacturer whose founder is still in charge and which is expanding is a more predictable source of abutments and screws a decade from now than one that has changed hands. That is an observation about supply risk, not a ranking; the same question applies to every system on our implant comparison table.
/ Grade 4, not grade 5: what the FDA documents say
The most common technical error repeated about this brand is the claim that AnyRidge fixtures are made from grade 5 titanium. The regulatory record does not support it.
Three separate 510(k) summaries state the fixture material explicitly. K182448 describes the AnyRidge Octa 1 fixture as made of CP Ti Grade 4 with an SLA-treated surface. K122231, from 2012, states the system is made from CP Titanium Gr.4 and Ti-6Al-4V ELI with sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched surface treatment. K241972, from 2024, defines the BlueDiamond body as CP Ti Grade 4 to ASTM F67. The alloy appears in the same documents, but as the abutment material. Every documented MegaGen fixture body is grade 4.
The comparison worth drawing is that grade 4 is the highest-strength unalloyed class under ASTM F67 and the most widely used fixture material across the whole category, so it is the shared baseline rather than a differentiator. Grade 5 is not pure titanium at all; it is the Ti-6Al-4V alloy containing roughly 6% aluminium and 4% vanadium. The mechanical difference between the two classes is set out in more detail on our Osstem spec page. Notably, MegaGen's own product communication presents grade 4 as an advantage on fatigue grounds rather than as a compromise, so pages that upgrade the brand to grade 5 contradict the manufacturer as well as the file.
/ What an AnyRidge implant is: the KnifeThread idea
AnyRidge is the line MegaGen launched in 2009 and it carries most of the brand's published clinical data. The design idea reduces to one sentence: the core diameter stays fixed and only the thread depth changes.
Conventional practice in soft bone is to choose a wider implant to gain grip, which requires a wider osteotomy and removes more bone. AnyRidge instead keeps a slim core and deepens the threads, so a broad gripping profile is delivered into a narrow socket. The manufacturer's own figure is concrete: a Ø5.0 mm fixture can be placed in a 2.9 mm osteotomy in D4 bone. The blade-profile, self-tapping thread gives the design its name, KnifeThread.
The geometry has been measured, though not under the brand name. A digital model study comparing a progressive knife-edge thread against ISO metric threads found the knife-edge profile increased external surface area by 9.9% at 4.6 mm diameter, with the apical half showing gains between 9.3% and 23.5%, while at 3.8 mm diameter the ISO self-tapping model was ahead by 1.5% (PubMed 41303958). The authors state directly that whether this surface-area difference translates into measurable stability remains to be investigated, which is the honest boundary of what a geometry study can claim.
/ The measured benefit and the measured cost of deeper threads
The clinical half of that question has now been tested under the brand name, and it cuts both ways.
A 2026 randomised controlled trial compared two MegaGen BlueDiamond fixtures identical in macro and micro design and differing only in thread depth, 0.40 mm against 0.65 mm, placed in 54 patients with fully guided surgery and followed for one year. Deeper-thread implants recorded higher insertion torque and a larger proportion clearing the 40 Ncm threshold. In the direct subgroup comparison of the two fixtures that differ only in thread depth, the deeper-thread group showed significantly greater angular deviation, particularly at molar sites (p = 0.029). At twelve months, marginal bone levels did not differ between groups (PubMed 41978331).
Read plainly: deeper threads buy primary stability, which is what immediate loading and soft bone protocols need, and they cost accuracy in guided placement. That is a trade-off decided by bone density and site, not a badge. The study was supported by a MegaGen research grant, which is worth knowing while reading it, and it also reported the unfavourable finding, which is worth noting too.
/ XPEED, the calcium layer, and why the implant looks blue
XPEED® is a calcium-incorporated layer applied hydrothermally over a sandblasted, acid-etched titanium base. This is not only the manufacturer's description. A peer-reviewed characterisation study using X-ray diffraction and electron microscopy found a crystalline calcium titanate (CaTiO₃) layer on XPEED surfaces with calcium evenly distributed and penetrating the implant, and reported higher cell density and viability for XPEED and SLA than for hydroxyapatite-coated surfaces after four weeks of healing in a rabbit model (PubMed 38893971). The boundary matters: that is an animal and cell-culture study, so it evidences what the surface is, not what it survives.
The colour is the part patients actually notice, and no patient-facing page explains it. The manufacturer's own product page states that the blue appearance is a quality check indicating the absence of acid residue. That is a manufacturer statement; no independent publication confirms or contradicts it, and nothing more is claimed here. Separately, MegaGen sells a line called BlueDiamond, and that name refers to the product line rather than to the colour of any implant. Its 2024 FDA file declares CP Ti Grade 4 with an SLA surface, so "I had a MegaGen placed" does not tell you which line or which surface you received. Ask for the product code.
/ Wettability: XPEED is conventional, and that has been measured
Wettability describes how readily an implant surface engages blood, and it is the most inflated heading in implant marketing. Here there is a number instead of a claim.
The contact angle of the XPEED surface was measured at 118.2 ± 1.91 degrees, against 121.1 ± 2.20 degrees for SLA and 123.7 ± 2.72 degrees for hydroxyapatite, with no statistically significant difference between the three groups (PMC11173531, Table 3). For scale, surfaces classed as hydrophilic fall below 10 degrees. So 118 degrees is in the hydrophobic range and XPEED shows no measurable wettability advantage over the SLA base beneath it. The authors attribute the high values across all groups to gamma irradiation of the samples. MegaGen makes no hydrophilicity claim for XPEED in its own official material either.
There is a clinically relevant exception. Titanium surfaces accumulate hydrocarbons over time and lose wettability; plasma treatment reduces that deposit. MegaGen's Plasma X Motion device activates the implant immediately before placement, and the treated version is called XPEEDActive. A four-week human histologic study found bone-to-implant contact of 38.7% with plasma treatment against 22.4% without (p = 0.002), on a very small sample of seven and five implants (PubMed 38793397). A stronger record arrived in 2025: an independent, self-funded, single-blind split-mouth randomised trial placed two contralateral AnyRidge implants in each of 24 patients, one plasma-activated. All 48 implants osseointegrated at 90 days, insertion torques did not differ, and plasma-treated implants showed significantly higher stability quotients at 60 and 90 days (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03), though the authors note the absolute difference between groups remained limited (PubMed 40693123). Whether your clinic uses the device is a fair question to ask.
/ The published survival record, and where it stops
The brand-specific study with a named product, a real survival percentage and the longest follow-up is a multicentre prospective series from 2018: 57 AnyRidge fixtures in 46 patients across six centres, immediately loaded and followed for four years. One fixture was lost, giving 98.1% implant-based and 97.6% patient-based survival, with 0.38 ± 0.21 mm of marginal bone loss over the period. The authors close by stating that long-term data are needed (PubMed 29732018).
Three further records fill in the picture. A maxillary overdenture series of 132 AnyRidge implants in 31 patients reported 98% overall survival at a mean 4.4 years, with peri-implantitis incidence of 1% and subgroup survival of 100%, 97.8% and 93.3% for six, four and three implants respectively (PubMed 35456347). A prospective cohort of 215 AnyRidge implants in 24 patients restored with 36 full arches lost two fixtures over one to three years, reported as 95.9% patient-based survival (PubMed 28246595). And a randomised trial of 45 calcium-incorporated implants in 30 patients recorded no implant or prosthesis failures five years after loading, with 1.19 ± 0.48 mm of marginal bone loss and no significant difference from the control surface (PubMed 29234748).
Now the missing half, stated rather than glossed. There is no 10-year survival data for MegaGen in PubMed. The longest brand-specific follow-up is five years, and four years for AnyRidge specifically. There is also no published systematic review or meta-analysis of MegaGen implants; a publication-type filtered search returns only general reviews in which the name appears incidentally. That does not make the system poor, it makes the evidence base young, and it is the reason the word "proven" does not appear on this page.
/ A documented indication: atrophic and narrow ridges
Neutral spec reporting rules out ranking brands but not reporting indications, and this system's best-documented use case sits where bone is scarce.
In a two-centre randomised controlled trial, 80 patients with atrophic posterior jaws were allocated either to 5 × 5 mm implants with a calcium-incorporated surface or to implants at least 10 mm long placed in grafted bone. Five years after loading there was no significant difference in prosthesis or implant failures. Complications were significantly more frequent at grafted mandibular sites (17 patients against 9, p = 0.013), and longer implants showed greater five-year bone loss in both jaws (p = 0.004 mandible, p = 0.024 maxilla). The authors add that 10-year data are needed before firm recommendations (PubMed 31116187).
Practically, this puts ultra-short implants on the table as an alternative to bone grafting or a sinus lift for patients with limited bone height, with a shorter treatment and less morbidity. Whether it applies to your anatomy is a CBCT question, decided alongside guided surgical planning rather than from a brand page.
/ What determines the cost of MegaGen implant treatment in Turkey
megagen implant cost is the money query for this brand, and the useful answer is a structure. No figure appears here because a price quoted before a CBCT scan describes a product rather than your treatment, and because the line placed changes the answer.
That last point is specific to this brand and it is where most quotes go wrong. AnyRidge, AnyOne, ST, ARi and BlueDiamond are different products at different costs, so a single figure labelled "MegaGen implant" leaves the patient unsure what they bought. Beyond the line, four layers set the total. Diameter, length and surface, including whether plasma activation is used. The number of stages and what is included, since a fixture price is not a treatment price once a healing abutment, a final abutment and a restoration are added; the restoration material is its own line item, and the choice of a zirconia crown moves the total independently of the implant. Additional surgery, which imaging determines. And the scale of the case, which separates a single implant from a four-implant arch, a six-implant arch and a full-mouth restoration by an order of magnitude in surgical and laboratory time. Where a single missing tooth is concerned, the alternative route is compared on our implant versus bridge page.
Two costs sit outside the quote and belong in the comparison anyway: component availability over the next decade and the review schedule. Both are covered in the next section, and the travel side is set out on our dental implants in Istanbul page.
/ Warranty, spare parts and service after you fly home
This is the section most brand pages skip and the one that decides the experience years later. For MegaGen the honest answer starts with what could not be verified.
No patient-facing, published, verifiable manufacturer warranty period for MegaGen could be located. The warranty document published through European channels is a commercial specification between distributor and clinician. Third-party pages state three different durations, three years, ten years and lifetime, and none of them cites a primary source. Publishing one of those numbers would be easy and would leave patients relying on a right they may not have, so no duration is stated here.
What can be stated is the distinction that matters. A manufacturer warranty covers the product and in practice runs through the clinician. A clinic warranty covers workmanship, reviews and remake, and it is the one that pays for surgical and laboratory time. Ask for both in writing, with duration and exclusions listed separately, before treatment begins.
On components, MegaGen's position is stronger than most value-tier brands and weaker than the market leaders, and both halves are true. The manufacturer maintains its own Turkish company, operating since 2008 with seven regional offices, is registered with the MHRA in the United Kingdom through a Manchester-based authorised representative, and runs a Dutch subsidiary. Against that, a general dental practice in Manchester or Berlin is less likely to hold MegaGen components in stock than the leading systems. That is solvable, but only with the right paperwork. Leave with the product code and serial number, not just the brand name, and with the line recorded; our patient journey page lists what is handed over at discharge.
/ Verifying the MegaGen implant you actually received
The general verification procedure applies to every system and is set out step by step on our Straumann spec page: European medical device law obliges the manufacturer to supply an implant card carrying the device name, serial number, lot number, Unique Device Identification, model and manufacturer details (Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Article 18), and the card is what makes any claim checkable.
Two checks are specific to this brand. First, the line and surface written on your paperwork must be a real combination, since AnyRidge, AnyOne, ST, ARi and BlueDiamond are distinct products and not every surface belongs to every line. Second, the manufacturer must be named as the legal entity MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd. rather than a distributor trade name; the public record behind that name is 41 FDA 510(k) clearances and European certification through notified body DNV. A clinic that cannot produce this documentation is a problem whatever brand is on the quote, and our clinical team issues it as standard.
/ Maintenance decides the tenth year, not the brand
MegaGen's best published outcomes come from four and five-year follow-ups. What determines the tenth year is the same across systems.
The systematic review of peri-implant epidemiology calculates weighted mean prevalences of 43% for peri-implant mucositis and 22% for peri-implantitis, with meta-regression showing prevalence rising with function time (PubMed 25495683). The mechanism that ends an implant's service is inflammation in the surrounding tissue rather than fatigue in the titanium, which is covered in detail on our peri-implantitis page.
Maintenance is the part with measured benefit. A systematic review and meta-analysis found lower incidence of peri-implant disease among implants enrolled in supportive programmes and concluded that a recall interval of at least five to six months is warranted, with a history of periodontal disease significantly influencing incidence (PubMed 26701350). Daily technique matters alongside the recall schedule and is set out on our implant cleaning guide.
MegaGen is not one of the six systems on our comparison table, which carries Straumann, Osstem, Neodent, Ankylos, Astra Tech and Medentika side by side. Which system suits a given case is decided by bone volume, site and prosthetic plan, and our clinicians will work through those variables with you rather than hand you a ranking.
Let’s plan the right treatment together.
Free Assessment→- 1.Raes F, et al. Immediate functional loading of single implants: a multicenter study with 4 years of follow-up. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12(1):26-37. PubMed 29732018.
- 2.Naeini EN, De Bruyn H, Bronkhorst EM, D'haese J. Case Series on the Long-Term Effect of Three Different Types of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures. J Clin Med. 2022;11(8):2251. PubMed 35456347.
- 3.Bechara S, Lukosiunas A, Dolcini GA, Kubilius R. Fixed Full Arches Supported by Tapered Implants with Knife-Edge Thread Design and Nanostructured, Calcium-Incorporated Surface. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4170537. PubMed 28246595.
- 4.Gastaldi G, et al. Early loading of maxillary titanium implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface (Xpeed): 5-year results. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(4):415-424. PubMed 29234748.
- 5.Esposito M, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants. Five-year results. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(1):39-54. PubMed 31116187.
- 6.Yang KR, Hong MH. Improved Biocompatibility and Osseointegration of Nanostructured Calcium-Incorporated Titanium Implant Surface Treatment (XPEED®). Materials (Basel). 2024;17(11):2707. PubMed 38893971 (PMC11173531, contact angles in Table 3).
- 7.Makary C, et al. Bone-to-Implant Contact in Implants with Plasma-Treated Nanostructured Calcium-Incorporated Surface (XPEEDActive). Materials (Basel). 2024;17(10):2331. PubMed 38793397.
- 8.Stacchi C, Rapani A, Montanari M, Martini R, Lombardi T. Effect of Vacuum Plasma Activation on Early Implant Stability. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2025;16(2):e4. PubMed 40693123.
- 9.Kwon NY, et al. Thread Depth Effects on Stability and Positional Accuracy in Guided Immediate Implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2026;28(2):e70145. PubMed 41978331.
- 10.Farronato D, et al. Implant Surface Variability Between Progressive Knife-Edge Thread Design and ISO Thread. Materials (Basel). 2025;18(22):5113. PubMed 41303958.
- 11.Camps-Font O, et al. Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(3):327-340. PubMed 34776267.
- 12.Derks J, Tomasi C. Peri-implant health and disease. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(Suppl 16):S158-S171. PubMed 25495683.
- 13.Monje A, et al. Impact of Maintenance Therapy for the Prevention of Peri-implant Diseases. J Dent Res. 2016;95(4):372-379. PubMed 26701350.
- 14.FDA 510(k) records K182448, K122231, K241972, K192347, K242030; openFDA applicant:"MegaGen" returns 41 records.
- 15.MegaGen AnyRidge product catalogue (AnyRidge_engweb.pdf, 128 pages, 2019): "Magic Five (5° Internal connection)", "5 degree morse taper".
- 16.MegaGen Türkiye product page (megagen.com.tr/anyridge), accessed 9 August 2026.
- 17.MegaGen Türkiye branch list (megagen.com.tr/about/contact/subeler), accessed 9 August 2026: seven regional offices.
- 18.Anadolu Agency, 26 February 2024: MegaGen's Istanbul plant decision, 15 million USD initial investment, CEO Kwang Bum Park statement.
- 19.biolase.com corporate statement on acquisition by MegaGen Implant; SEC EDGAR CIK 0000811240 filings for BIOLASE, INC.
- 20.DNV (notified body 2460) European medical device regulation certificates; MHRA registration via MDSS-UK RP Limited, Manchester.
- 21.Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Article 18: implant card and information supplied to the patient.
