Compare

Comparative analysis

Comparison of the main implant systems
against four key biomimetic criteria.

View the comparison The Z1 system

Z1 features

Patented zirconia collar
Titanium body
Clinical versatility
Protective barrier
Tissue stability
98.8% Paro-Integration
Aesthetics
EU-MDR
Patented zirconia collar
Titanium body
Clinical versatility
Protective barrier
Tissue stability
98.8% Paro-Integration
Aesthetics
EU-MDR

Compared systems

Analysis

Comparative analysis of the main implant designs

The interface between the dental implant and the peri-implant soft tissues plays a central role in long-term biological stability.

While most current implant systems are based on historical designs focused on osseointegration, biomimetic criteria provide a new framework based on the observation of the natural behavior of biological tissues.

Here, implants representing more than 75% of the global market* are compared according to four key criteria influencing tissue response and aesthetic integration:

Type of material in contact with bone
Type of material in contact with soft tissue
Supracrestal design
Colour of the transgingival collar

This comparison helps distinguish conventional approaches from biomimetic designs.

*The trademarks mentioned in this document are the property of their respective owners. They are cited for illustrative purposes as part of a comparative analysis based on publicly technical data and scientific publications available at the time of writing.

Category 1: submerged titanium implant

Bone biomaterial: Titanium
Gingival biomaterial: None
Biodesign: Bone Level
Colorimetry: None

Implant systems

Anthogyr Axiom BL X3 , Biohorizons Tapered Pro Conical , Biotech Dental Kontact , Camlog Progressive-line , Dentsply Sirona DS PrimeTaper , Megagen Bluediamond , MIS Seven XD , Nobel Biocare NobelActive , Neodent Helix GM , Osstem implant TS , Straumann BLT , TBR Dental Infinity , ZimVie T3 PRO Tapered