TSX® Dental Implant

Next Generation Immediacy Meets Clinical Confidence

TSX dental implants exceed expectations in immediacy, leveraging an extraordinary combination of clinically proven features

Features
Benefits
Informational Material
Bibliography

The TSX Implant incorporates several design elements with a long history of clinical use established by Screw-Vent® and TSV Implants. The origins of these design features and understanding of their clinical rationale and evidence provide historical context for the evolution of the TSX Implant.

Features

  • Increased Bone Contact: Greater implant surface area in initial contact with the bone for optimal stability
  • Progressive Torque: Progressive increase of insertion torque during placement, ensuring control and precision
  • Balanced Stability: Design that achieves high stability without the need for excessive insertion torque values
  • Modern Hybrid Surface: Combines advanced surface technologies backed by extensive clinical use
  • DAE Cervical Surface: Features a Double Acid-Etched (DAE) surface at the cervical area
  • MTX Surface: Incorporates the well-established MTX surface technology
  • Strategic Combination: Optimized surface distribution across cervical and sub-cervical regions for peak performance
  • Osteoconductive Potential: The MTX surface provides proven osteoconductive properties to enhance integration
  • Clinical Evidence: Supported by long-term clinical data, with over 20 years of success for the MTX surface

Benefits

  • Balanced Biological Response: Optimized balance for peri-implant needs in both cervical and sub-cervical regions
  • Surface Safety: No increased risk of peri-implantitis compared to machined titanium surfaces
  • Bone Preservation: Improved crestal bone maintenance
  • Osseointegration: High osseointegration potential with increased Initial Bone-to-Implant Contact (IBIC)
  • Primary Stability: Enhanced primary stability with high insertion torque
  • Surgical Control: Reliable stability during placement with clear tactile feedback for the clinician
  • Clinical Reliability: Clinically proven long-term success, adapted for modern demands such as peri-implantitis prevention and immediate loading
  •  TSX Apical Stability Results
    • 35 Ncm apical torque in TSX extraction protocol
    • 25% more dental implant surface area in contact with bone upon insertion than the TSV Implant (in TSX extraction protocol)
    • (Data from in vitro testing engaging only the apical 4mm of the dental implant; untapped averages)
  • Placement Predictability
    • Designed to follow the drilled osteotomy– Unlike some very aggressive dental implants that can track off the desired course during placement
    • Τhe TSX Dental Implant is not designed to change direction during seating, aiding in placement predictability

TSX Implants

Resources

Brochure

TSX & TSV Brochure

 

TSX Implant Brochure Final Secured

 

Prosthetic Overview_TSV_TSX_TM_Eztetic Final

 

Retrieval Tools for TSV, Eztetic and TSX Datasheet Final Secured

 

TSV and TSX Partially Guided Surgery Solutions Sell Sheet

 

Catalogs

TSX Catalog Final Secured

 

Clinical Cases

Clinical Case TSX

 

Dental TSX White Paper Final Secured

 

Manuals

TSX Drilling Sequence Sell Sheet Final Secured

 

TSX Implant Surgical Manual Final Secured

 

Bibliography

    1. Data on file.
    2. Xuesong Wang, Olga Sanchez, Elnaz Ajami, Hai Bo Wen. Impact of Implant Surface Roughness on Pathogenic Bacterial Adhesion. Abstract N° EAO-266. European Association for Osseointegration, Geneva 2022. Accepted for publication at COIR Special Issue.
    3. Zetterqvist L, Feldman S, Rotter B, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled 5-year study of hybrid and fully etched implants for the incidence of peri-implantitis. J Periodontol. 2010; 81:493-501.
    4. Mendes VC, Moineddin R, Davies JE. Discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystalline deposition enhances osteoconduction on titanium-based implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009; 90(2):577-85.
    5. Davies JE, Ajami E, Moineddin R, Mendes VC. The roles of different scale ranges of surface implant topography on the stability of the bone/implant interface. Biomaterials 2013; 34:3535-35456
    6. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006; 26(1):9-17.
    7. Trisi P, Marcato C, Todisco M. Bone-to-implant apposition with machined and MTX microtextured implant surfaces in human sinus grafts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23(5): 427-437.
    8. Todisco M, Trisi P. Histomorphometric evaluation of six dental implant surfaces after early loading in augmented human sinuses. J Oral Implantol. 2006;32(4):153-166.
    9. Abrahmsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontal 1997 Aug; 24(8):568-72.
    10. Huang HL, Tsai MT, Su KC, Li YF, Hsu JT, Chang CH, Fuh LJ, Wu AY. Relation between initial implant stability quotient and bone-implant contact percentage: an in vitro model study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013 Nov;116(5):e356-61.
    11. Subramani et al. Biofilm on dental implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24(4):616-26.
    12. Park SJ, Sanchez O, Ajami E, Wen HB. Bacterial Adhesion to Different Dental Implant Collar Surfaces: An in-vitro comparative study. 34thAnnual Meeting Academy of Osseointegration, Washington, DC, March 2019.
    13. Bermejo P, Sanchez MC, Llama-Palacios A, Figuero E, Herrera D, Sanz Alanso M. Biofilm formation on dental implants with different surface micro-topography: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2019; 30:725–734.
    14. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral Implant Surfaces: Part 1-Review Focusing on Topographic and Chemical Properties of Different Surfaces and In Vivo Responses to Them. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(5):536-543.