The combination of the Roxolid® material and the SLActive® surface provides excellent osseointegration.
Osseointegration (in-vivo, pre-clincial testing)
- Preclinical study (at 4 weeks) comparing Roxolid® SLActive® vs. Titanium SLActive®1
- Roxolid® implants show higher removal torque values (Fig. 1)1
- Roxolid® implants have more bone in-growth (Fig. 2)1
- Similar bone to implant contact for both materials1,2
- These results indicate an improvement even in comparison to a SLActive® surface on titanium1
 |
Fig. 1: Removal torque of Roxolid® SLActive® (left) vs. Ti SLActive® (right) |
 |
Fig. 2: Histological analysis of bone structure with TiZr (left) and Ti (right) implants |
Osteoblast reaction (in-vitro)3
- Titanium and Zirconium, the components of Roxolid®, do not inhibit osteoblast cell growth (Fig. 3)
- ‘The inhibition of osteoblast cell growth for any metal other than titanium and zirconium suggests that these elements only have the capacity for osseointegration‘1
1Gottlow te al. Preclinical data presented at the 23rd Annual meeting of the Academy of Osseointegration (AO) in Boston, and at the 17th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) in Wasaw, data on file
2Thoma D et al, Evaluation of a new titanium-ziconium dental implant. A comparative radiographic study in the canine mandible, oral presentation at the 24th Annual meeting of the Academy of Osseointegration in San Diego, data on file
3Steinemann SG ‚Titanium – the material of choice?’ Periodontology 2000, 1998, Vol 17; 7-21, p. 12
