Camlog Dental Implants: Discussion

One implant system what I like to work in my dental practice is CAMLOG system. I placed many Camlog implants and result is excellent. It's a very easy to work and system offer to dentist and patient many possibilities. Supra structure has a good connection and it is very reliable. I recommend this system.

I have been using Camlog implants for a long time. Dr. Peter Hunt called me and recommended this system as Axel Kirsch's new system (some time after IMZ disappeared). This was way before H Schein was selling the system. I was particularly intrigued with the prosthetic component connection with the "cams" for anti-rotation and the long sleeve that inserts into the fixture, thus removing most of the lateral stress from the screw. As far as the fixture itself, with the surfaces of today, most any implant will stick to the bone. Having used Branemark (now Nobel), IMZ, SteriOss, 3I, Stryker (now Bicon), and others, I went to Camlog primarily for the prosthetic aspect. I am acquainted with Axel (through U. of Penn) and am always amazed at his intellect and innovative skills, and saw that his design had some real advantages to what I was using before. Placing these are as easy as any other implant system. Success rates are as good as any other. Having placed and restored these Camlog implants for many years now, I can recommend the system. Now let's have a discussion about Implant Direct. Thinking of changing to them... cost saving. Have heard good things and have been aware of Gerry Niznick for the last 30 years, also a very bright innovator.

I started using Camlog implants many years ago looking for a good prosthetic platform would prevent screw loosening and was tapered in design. I have had no problems with it. As the years passed, I have used other systems and have settled for two or three systems that I rely upon. I would like to see the Camlog prosthetic platform incorporate a platform switch design ( believe they said it was available)and I am glad that they reduced the size of the collar on their implants. They need to update the pictures and information on their website to their present line of implants.

I have been placing and restoring Camlog implants for a while. I had a great experience with this system. Easy, straight forward, simple and so far no complications. I recommend this system. My only comment is the expense comparing to Implant Direct. I might switch to implant direct. If any one has been using implant direct, please let us know your experience with the system. i know the cost probably is the best in the market. Thank you.

I've been using Camlog system for a long time. Superb! Easy to install, easy of instrumentation, easy for the prosthetic part of the system. I was the first in Italy to use the CAMLOG GUIDE system. Very friendly system different from the other guided implant systems because it doesn't use "keys" to change the surgical guide holes but it uses just a different drill length. No necessity for the second hand occupied in keeping the keys. Wonderful!

I have been placing Camlog implants as the exclusive implant in my practice for the past 5 1/2 years. In all that time I have not encountered a situation in which the implant was unable to fill the role necessary. I was initially brought to Camlog due to its superior implant-abutment interface. I NEVER worry about a screw loosening or my restoration failing due to a connection failure. From a surgical side- the system is very simple and straight forward to use. The built in drill stops are a detail that asures safety and precision for its users. To address the concerns of a few of the posters to this thread; Camlog does offer the ability to platform switch. In fact I believe it is the only syetem that allows you decide upon platform switching at restoration time. You do not need to use a special implant to achieve this- you place the Camlog implant and you can restore it with either a standard or platform switched abutment. It is nice to have that option depending upon the restorative needs. As for the comment from the Dr. regarding price. Two responses to that- First, you get what you pay for. With implant direct, you are paying for a clone, and an inferior surgical kit. Secondly, now that Implant Direct has been sold, I doubt the implant unit price will continue to stay in range it currently sells for. Camlog has a 10+ history of use and clinical studies to back it up. For my patients, I want to provide the best treatment and materials I can.

Editor's note: With regards to Implant Direct: The company was sold to Sybron (part of the Danaher Group). We had a post regarding Implant Direct about a year and a half ago: http://www.osseonews.com/implant-direct-pros-and-cons/ . Interestingly, the upshot of that post was that Niznick would sell Implant Direct in due time to a larger company. How the merger will effect prices, and more important the ID marketing pitch is still not clear. Now back to Camlog...

At the Midwest Implant Institute we have used the Camlog dental implant system for approximately four years. We have been blessed to train hundreds of dentists with staff who bring their own patients to perform implant surgery. The unexperienced dentist finds that the camlog system provides them with drill "guards" which allow them to only drill to a certain safe depth of the implant receptor site.

In a radiographic study at Freiburg University on the stability of the Abutment/Implant interface under lateral load, of the 8 implants tested, Camlog's butt joint demonstrated the most gapping with NobelReplace the next worse. Both have tri-lobe anti-rotation grooves but the Camlog has smaller grooves. The videos of these tests are posted online. I can not find the link now but downloaded the videos and can send them to anyone who wants them.

This is one of the few times I am in complete agreement with Gerry. A tube-in-tube connection makes no sense if, during excursive function, there is significant percolation of fluids/pathogens at the implant-abutment interface. All flat-to-flat abutment systems suffer from the same critical flaw. This is why we see significant crestal bone remodeling in this type of implant connection. An interference or a ferrule attachment dramatically reduces this type of effect. RJM

Dr. Assi, I have been using Implant Direct for almost two years. I switched back to Nobel when they told me about TV ads that would work like 1-800-Dentist and a few other promises. The ads never became reality and I'm back with Implant Direct. I've heard some people say, "Yeah ID is less expensive, but you don't get good rep support" I have never missed any support, what exactly does one get that ID doesn't offer. I order my implants from ID online and they show up in two to five days. What exactly are people using their reps for? Anyway, I am mostly using RePlant from ID, the Nobel Replace Select clone. I have restored Nobel with the clone prosthetics and vice versa. I've had no problems with the system. I think ID is best for experienced users. Someone mentioned an inferior surgical kit from ID. I didn't but an entire kit from ID. I just bought items as I needed them. There are so many surgical aids that one can adapt to any system that I don't find myself unhappy. Bottom line: The system works and costs a lot less. I pass this savings on to my patients. When people consult several dentists before choosing one, and I can shave off $180 to $400 per implant, that ads up. On big cases I find my treatment plans come in below many other quotes. It's not always true that because it's more expensive, it's better. Come on, how much does it really cost to manufacture an implant? Selling an implant for around $400 is a rip off.

This thread is for the discussion of Camlog implants. If you would like to talk about Implant Direct, please visit the thread below. Thank you. http://www.osseonews.com/implant-direct-pros-and-cons/

I have been placing, restoring and educating Camlog Implants for over 4 years and love this system as well as the company's commitment to constant improvement of products. The first thing I noticed before knowing all the detail and thought that went into the design of the implant were the surgical stops on the drills keeping even the most novice placer safe from drilling too deep into the bone. This is my 4th (and last) system and of all, Camlog has been the easiest to use. Camlog has all the restorative options that I need for my practice as well. Camlog is the exclusive implant for the Midwest Surgical Institute of Dental Implants (MSIDI) and I intend to keep it that way for many years to come. One cannot go wrong in chosing this implant. Great company, great implant, great future!!! Yours in dental health, Joseph A. Favia, D.D.S.

All two-part connection systems leak, to think otherwise is absurd. The question is whether the leakage is sufficient to cause problems such as implant failure, bone loss (particularly at the collar), transgingival abscesses peri-implant gingivitis etc over the long term. Camlog has been using the same connection system for more than a decade and we would know by now if they are subject to any particular problems. They are not. Their long term results are just fine. The precision, simplicity of use, strength and durability of the Camlog connection are what make it so user-friendly and so much appreciated. It's hard to appreciate unless you have tried it. Axel got it right, so right. Now implantology is fun.

I agree completely with Dr. Peter Hunt. I have been placing and restoring Camlog Implants for almost 6 years with great success due to its precision and simplicity in the surgical and restorative aspects. My dental assistants can remove healing abutments, insert impression posts, try final abutments, verify fit with x-rays and have case ready for final impression or crown try-in easily. Our lab technicians are very happy with Camlog because is simple. Imagine how many times the tech needs to insert and remove the abutment from the analog to verify the fit of a crown. We used Zimmer ScrewVent prior to Camlog, eventhough I think is a good implant, we COULD NOT DO the same things that we are doing now with Camlog. We are more efficient now and our restorations take less effort. In regards to the study at Freiburg which was actually at Frankfurt. The in vitro study performed at the University of Frankfurt is based on the old J-Series design. For the new K-Series under physiological load you can't see a micro-gap. In his publication Zipprich et al. (Implantologie 15, 2007) states under clinical implications: “Since the results of this in-vitro study cannot be applied wholesale to the situation in vivo, their clinical relevance cannot be established with certainty. It is a fact, however, that successful clinical results have been documented in the literature for all implant systems included in the present investigation” As written in the publication of Zipprich et al. (2007) all investigated implant systems demonstrate in the literature successful clinical data. In several peer reviewed publications the long-term survival and success rates of CAMLOG implants is above 97.8%. Already in 1997 Jansen VK et al. (JOMI) revealed that the myth of the tight conical implant-abutment connection is not true. These findings have been confirmed in more recent studies. In the investigation of Rack et al. (2010) the micro-gap in the conical-implant-abutment connection became visible using high-resolution radiography in combination with hard X-ray synchrotron radiation. With classical laboratory radiography Zipprich et al. (2007) didn't see the micro-gap in the conical implant abutment connection. In their introduction Rack et al. even wrote: "An in vitro observation of a micro-gap at the implant–abutment interface with conical-shaped connections has not been reported yet, hence even its non-existence was concluded due to this (Zipprich et al., 2007)". C. Edgar Davila, DDS, MS Maxillofacial Board Certified Prosthodontist Tampa, Florida

Camlog is a great impant adn I have placed at least 500 or more of them. I was very happy with the system before Schien bought them adn the company is now more interested in the bottom line than the customer. Their price is twice Implant Direct and most people do not know the company. I hope schien drops the company and someone who cares buys them and understands price and service.