Product Information

SLActive®
Performance Beyond Imagination
Maximizing Treatment Success
 10 YEARS OF CLINICAL SUCCESS AND PROVEN PREDICTABILITY

IMMEDIATE COMPROMISED ENHANCED

LOADING PATIENTS BONE GRAFTING*
High predictability Emerging success in Significantly higher
in immediate Diabetic and formation of new
loading Irradiated Patients bone aggregate

*Based on results of a pre-clinical study in animals (minipig); the preclinical testing is not correlated to long-term clinical outcomes in humans.

2
2 Straumann® SLActive®
Beyond hydrophilicity
the science of high performance

More than 10 years ago, Straumann® pioneered accelerated

osseointegration with the innovative hydrophilic SLActive®
surface, reducing the healing period from 6 – 8 down to 3 – 4
weeks for most indications.¹

We have made faster treatment, shorter healing time, and

better outcomes a reality.1 The extensive healing potential of
SLActive® can now be seen even in challenging patients and
treatment protocols.

Leading researchers worldwide are looking at what’s behind the

outstanding clinical performance of SLActive®. As new insights
emerge, discover how you could benefit from the high perfor-
mance SLActive® surface to support your patients’ healing ca-
pabilities.

Discover the science of high performance.

NEW INSIGHTS INTO SLACTIVE® SURFACE PERFORMANCE

ULTRA-FINE TOPOGRAPHY INCREASED

ON SLACTIVE® SURFACE SURFACE AREA

+50 %

Distinct ultra-fine topography present on the Ultra-fine topography increase the SLActive®
SLActive® , but not on the SLA® surface.² surface area by more than 50%.²

Straumann® SLActive® 3
3
Discover the science of high performance

ULTRA-FINE TOPOGRAPHY PRESENT ON THE SLACTIVE® SURFACE

Distinct ultra-fine topography recently
discovered on the SLActive® surface,
prove for the first time, that the
SLActive® surface topography differs
from that of SLA®.

Roxolid® SLA® Roxolid® SLActive®

ULTRA-FINE TOPOGRAPHY ON SLACTIVE® INCREASE SURFACE AREA BY MORE THAN 50 % ²⁵

ѹѹ Larger surface area in contact with bone enhances BIC* ³² Implant surface area increase
ѹѹ SLA/SLActive® micro-roughness increases the surface area
1.5
by at least 100 % compared to the machined surface ²⁶ 50+%
ѹѹ Ultra-fine topography increase the SLActive® surface area
1.0
by more than 50 % ²⁵
0.5

0
Turned/machined Roxolid® SLA® Roxolid® SLActive®
Ti surface

Y-axis: 1 = 100 %
* BIC = Bone to implant contact

4 Straumann® SLActive®
Immediate loading with long-lasting results.
New long-term data from a randomized, controlled, multicenter study
demonstrate the impressive performance of SLActive® with immediate
loading. In fact, the SLActive® Implants delivered a 10-year survival rate of
98.2 % in this challenging protocol.3
Ever increasing patient expectations continue to drive demand for faster, and more efficient treatment protocols. Immediate
loading allows the clinician to place a prosthetic restoration on the same day as the implant.
This approach allows a patient to benefit from the restoration straightaway. However, this demanding protocol carries a higher
risk of failure due to premature loading of a healing implant.

Study design
Indication Randomized controlled
maxilla or mandible of partially edentulous patients,
temporary restoration (single crown or 2 – 4 unit fixed partial denture)
multicenter study
was replaced by permanent restoration 20 to 23 weeks post surgery

64 Patients

Weiden,
Germany

Witten/Herdecke,
Germany

Coimbra, Portugal

10 years Immediate loading Early loading

Study follow-up 39 implants 50 implants
(restored the same day) (restored after 28 – 34 days)

IMPLANT SURVIVAL RATE IN

IMMEDIATE LOADING AFTER 10 YEARS2

STUDY CONCLUSION

98.2 %
survival rate
ѹѹ SLActive® implants provide a long-term highly
predictable treatment option

Randomized controlled multicenter study

Straumann® SLActive® 5
Discover the high performance
of the SLActive® surface

6 Straumann® SLActive®
SLActive® in irradiated patients.
Predictability beyond expectations.
One of the most challenging patient groups for implant treatment includes patients who have
undergone a combination of tumor surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy*. Irradiation leads
to decreased bone vascularity 5,6, impaired osteoblastic activity 7 and reduced bone vitality 8,9
which severely compromises bone quality in these patients. The fragile mucosa and the risk
of osteoradio-necrosis present further challenges. However, from a quality-of-life perspective,
this patient group stands to benefit the most from implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation.
SLActive® showed a 100 % success rate in irradiated patients in a recent randomized clinical trial
(RCT).4 Based on published systematic reviews10,11,12,13, no other implant surface has demonstrated
such a success rate in this patient group within a setting. Remarkably, the 5-year follow-up of the
trial showed that none of the surviving patients had an SLActive® implant failure. The effective
implant survival rate was an outstanding 100%.14

SLActive® PERFORMANCE IN IRRADIATED PATIENTS

Randomized Clinical Trial³:
ѹѹ 102 implants, 20 patients (1 year/19 patients, 5 years/15 patients)
ѹѹ Post-surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy for oral carcinoma

1-year follow-up3 5-year follow-up13,14

100% 100%
Implant survival rate, adjusted*** (%)
Implant success rate** (%)

SLA® SLActive® SLA® SLActive®

One patient was excluded from the study due Excludes four additional patients who died
to tumor recurrence. Therefore, the graph is due to cancer. Therefore, the graph is based
based on 19 patients with 97 implants. on 15 patients with 79 implants.

* Patients previously irradiated in the head and neck the following recommendations for the clinician treating patients previously irradiated in the head
and neck should be followed, communication with the patient‘s oncologist, cumulative irradiation doses less than 50 Gy are advisable. Implants should be
placed at 6 to 12 months after cessation of radiation treatment and implants should be placed no less than 14 days prior to radiation treatment.
** Success criteria as per Buser D. et al. Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: A 5-year prospective study in partially
edentulous patients. Int J Periodont Restor Dent. 2002; 22: 108–17.
*** Adjusted, excluding the patients deceased due to cancer mortality.

Straumann® SLActive® 7
Uncompromised performance.
Even in diabetic patients.

Patients with diabetes have reduced wound healing capacity,16,17 putting

dental implants at risk, particularly if the patient is unaware of the
condition. Worldwide, 1 in 11 adults has diabetes, while among adults
60 years of age and older, the prevalence is twice as high.18
Over the past 30 years, the number of people with diabetes in the US has quadrupled and, according to the US Center
for Disease Control (CDC), the figure could increase to as many as one in every three adults by 2050.18 In an estimated
50% of people with type 2 diabetes, the disease remains undiagnosed.18

Give a rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes – how PERFORMANCE IN

DIABETIC PATIENT GROUP20-30
can clinicians address the risk, particularly in older
patients?

GROWING CLINICAL EVIDENCE OF PREDICTABLE

100 %
success rate
PERFORMANCE OF SLACTIVE® IN DIABETIC PATIENTS:
A new clinical study19 that compared SLActive® performance in patients with and
without diabetes showed uncompromised performance of SLActive® implants: A prospective, case‑control clinical study
ѹѹ 100 % implant success rate in the diabetic group after 2 years (14 well-controlled and 14 non-diabetic
individuals)
ѹѹ Bone changes similar to those in healthy individuals

8 Straumann® SLActive®
 Hydrophilic properties
and chemical activity

Surface based on the

scientifically proven SLA®
topography

NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT SLActive®

DEMONSTRATES HIGH ANTI-INFLAMMATORY POTENTIAL:

ѹѹ Roxolid® SLActive® surface stimulates an early anti-inflammatory cell response30

Straumann® SLActive® 9
 Promotion of Bone
Regeneration in bone defects
Bone defects can greatly compromise the predictability of
osseointegration. In a recent preclinical study31, SLActive® showed
significantly higher formation of new bone aggregate within eight weeks
compared to the standard Straumann® SLA® hydrophobic surface.*
Buccal bone to implant contact was significantly higher in SLActive® groups as compared to standard SLA®, highlighting
the benefit of SLActive® to support faster bone integration, in coronal circumferential defects

BONE AGGREGATE FORMATION AT 8 WEEKS.

SLA® SLActive®

Xenograft

SLA® SLActive®

Allograft

Histological views of bone aggregate (new bone and grafting

material) 8 weeks post-grafting.

*Based on results of a pre-clinical study in animals (minipig); the preclinical testing is not correlated to long-term clinical outcomes in humans.

10 Straumann® SLActive®
The Surface with success built in SLActive® designed to deliver:

• Faster osseointegration* to enhance confidence in all treatments

• Reduced healing times from 6-8 weeks to 3-4 weeks*
• Increased predictability in stability-critical treatment protocols

Please contact your local sales representative to get more

information about the advantage of the SLActive® surface now or visit
slactive.straumann.com

* Based on results of a pre-clinical study in animals (fox hounds); the pre-clinical testing is not correlated to long-term clinical outcomes in humans.

Straumann® SLActive® 11
 REFERENCES

1 Straumann SLActive implants compared to Straumann SLA implants. 2 Straumann (2017) developed area ratio by nanostructures Rxd Mod MA surface.
Report SR0748. Unpublished data. 3 Nicolau P, Guerra F, Reis R, Krafft T, Benz K , Jackowski J 10-year results from a randomized controlled multicenter study
with immediately and early loaded SLActive implants in posterior jaws. Accepted for oral presentation at 25th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European
Association of Osseointegration – 29 Sep – 1 Oct 2016, Paris. 4 Heberer S, Kilic S, Hossamo J, Raguse J-D, Nelson K. Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with
modified and conventional sandblasted, acid-etched implants: preliminary results of a split-mouth study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 May;22(5):546-51.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02050.x. Epub 2010 Dec 2. 5 Yerit, K., Posch, M., Seemann, M., Hainich, S., Dortbudak, O., Turhani, D., Ozyuvaci, H., Watzinger,
R. and Ewers, R. (2006) Implant Survival in Mandibles of Irradiated Oral Cancer Patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Jun;17(3):337-44. 6 Verdonck, H.W.D.,
Meijer, G.J., Laurin, T., Nieman, F.H.M., Stoll, C., Riediger, D., Stoelinga, P.J.W. and de Baat, C. (2007) Assessment of Vascularity in Irradiated and Non-Irradi-
ated Maxillary and Mandibular Alveolar Minipig Bone Using Laser Doppler Flowmetry. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, 22, 774-778.
7 Hu, W.W., Ward, B.B., Wang, Z. and Krebsbach, P.H. (2010) Bone Regeneration in Defects Compromised by Radiotherapy. J Dent Res. 2010 Jan; 89(1): 77–81.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0022034509352151. 8 Wang, R., Pillai, K. and Jones, P.K. (1998) Dosimetric Measurements of Scatter Radiation from Dental Im-
plants in Stimulated Head and Neck Radiotherapy. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants, 13, 197-203. 9 Grotz, K.A., Al-Nawas, B., Piepkorn,
B., Reichert, T.E., Duschner, H. and Wagner, W.(1999) Micromorphological Findings in Jaw Bone after Radiotherapy. Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, 3,
140-145. 10 Chambrone L, Mandia J, Shibli JA, Romito GA, Abrahao M. Dental Implants Installed in Irradiated Jaws: A Systematic Review. Journal of Dental
Research. 2013;92(12 Suppl):119S-130S. doi:10.1177/0022034513504947. 11 Shugaa-Addin B, Al-Shamiri H-M, Al-Maweri S, Tarakji B. The effect of radio-
therapy on survival of dental implants in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2016;8(2):e194-e200. doi:10.4317/
jced.52346. 12 Nooh N. Dental implant survival in irradiated oral cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013
Sep-Oct;28(5):1233-42. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3045. 13 Dholam KP, Gurav SV. Dental implants in irradiated jaws: A literature review. J Cancer Res Ther. 2012
Jan;8 Suppl 1:S85-93. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.92220. 14 Nelson, K., Stricker, A., Raguse, J.-D. and Nahles, S. (2016), Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with
chemically modified and conventional SLA implants: a clinical clarification. J Oral Rehabil, 43: 871–872. doi:10.1111/joor.12434 15 Nack C, Raguse JD, Stricker
A, Nelson K, Nahles S. Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with chemically modified and conventional SLA implants: five-year follow-up. J Oral Rehabil. 2015
Jan;42(1):57-64. doi: 10.1111/joor.12231. 16 Devlin H, Garland H, Sloan P. Healing of tooth extraction sockets in experimental diabetes mellitus. J Oral Max-
illofac Surg. 1996 Sep;54(9):1087-91. 17 Wang F, Song YL, Li DH, Li CX, Wang Y, Zhang N, Wang BG. Type 2 diabetes mellitus impairs bone healing of dental
implants in GK rats. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010 Apr;88(1):e7-9. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.01.017. 18 IDF Diabetes Atlas, 7th Edition, 2015 http://www.
diabetesatlas.org/. 19 Cabrera-Domínguez J, Castellanos-Cosano L, Torres-Lagares D, Machuca-Portillo G. A Prospective Case-Control Clinical Study of Tita-
nium-Zirconium Alloy Implants with a Hydrophilic Surface in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Sep/Oct;32(5):1135-
1144. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5577. 20 Cabrera-Domínguez J. A prospective, two-year clinical trial of titanium-zirconium alloy implants (Roxolid® Straumann®)
with hydrophilic surface (SLActive®) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. presented during 26th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association
of Osseointegration – 5-7 Oct 2017, Madrid, Spain. 21 Al Amri MD, Abduljabbar TS.Comparison of clinical and radiographic status of platform-switched
implants placed in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 24-month follow-up longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Feb;28(2):226-
230. doi: 10.1111/clr.12787. Epub 2016 Jan 29. 22 Al Amri MD, Alfarraj Aldosari AM, Al-Johany SS, Al Baker AM, Al Rifaiy MQ, Al-Kheraif AA. Comparison of
clinical and radiographic status around immediately loaded versus conventional loaded implants placed in patients with type 2 diabetes: 12- and 24-month
follow-up results. J Oral Rehabil. 2017 Mar;44(3):220-228. doi: 10.1111/joor.12466. Epub 2016 Dec 31. 23 Al Amri MD, Kellesarian SV, Al-Kheraif AA, Malm-
strom H, Javed F, Romanos GE. Effect of oral hygiene maintenance on HbA1c levels and peri-implant parameters around immediately-loaded dental implants
placed in type-2 diabetic patients: 2 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):1439-1443. doi: 10.1111/clr.12758. Epub 2016 Jan 12. 24
Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Calvo-Guirado JL, González-Jaranay M, Moreu G, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Gómez-Moreno G. Peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded
implants placed in esthetic zone in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2: a two-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Feb;27(2):156-61. doi: 10.1111/
clr.12552. Epub 2015 Jan 26. 25 Gómez-Moreno G, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Rubio Roldán J, Guardia J, Gargallo J, Calvo-Guirado JL. Peri-implant evaluation in type
2 diabetes mellitus patients: a 3-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Sep;26(9):1031-5. doi: 10.1111/clr.12391. Epub 2014 Mar 31. 26 Khandelwal N, Oates
TW, Vargas A, Alexander PP, Schoolfield JD, Alex McMahan C. Conventional SLA and chemically modified SLA implants in patients with poorly controlled type
2 diabetes mellitus--a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):13-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02369.x. Epub 2011 Dec 6. 27
Oates TW Jr, Galloway P, Alexander P, Vargas Green A, Huynh-Ba G, Feine J, McMahan CA. The effects of elevated hemoglobin A(1c) in patients with type 2
diabetes mellitus on dental implants: Survival and stability at one year. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014 Dec;145(12):1218-26. doi: 10.14219/jada.2014.93. 28 Dŏgan
ŞB, Kurtiş MB, Tüter G, Serdar M, Watanabe K, Karakış S. Evaluation of Clinical Parameters and Levels of Proinflammatory Cytokines in the Crevicular Fluid
Around Dental Implants in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):1119-27. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3787. 29
Erdogan Ö, Uçar Y, Tatlı U, Sert M, Benlidayı ME, Evlice B. A clinical prospective study on alveolar bone augmentation and dental implant success in patients
with type 2 diabetes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Nov;26(11):1267-75. doi: 10.1111/clr.12450. Epub 2014 Jul 11. 30 Hotchkiss KM, Ayad NB, Hyzy SL, Boyan
BD, Olivares-Navarrete R. Dental implant surface chemistry and energy alter macrophage activation in vitro. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Apr;28(4):414-423.
doi: 10.1111/clr.12814. Epub 2016 Mar 23. 31 Straumann (2016). SLActive supports enhanced bone formation in a minipig surgical GBR model with coronal
circumferential defects. Unpublished data. 32 Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A Smoking and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Dent. 2015 May;43(5):487-98

Straumann North American Headquarters ifu.straumann.com

Straumann USA, LLC
60 Minuteman Road
Andover, MA 01810
Phone 800/448 8168 (US)  800/363 4024 (CA)
USLIT.1030 4/19 V4

Fax 978/747 2490

www.straumann.us  www.straumann.ca

© Straumann USA, LLC 2019. All rights reserved.

Straumann® and/or other trademarks and logos from Straumann® that are mentioned herein are the
trademarks or registered trademarks of Straumann Holding AG and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.