Comparing XiVE Implant Systems?

the Xive system is one of the most versatile systems on the market with some unique features. the great thing about this surgical kit is that it is the same for the regular Xive as well as the TG solid implant. this feature allows the clinician to make his/her implant selection during surgery if necessary without opening a second surgical kit. it is a two for one opportunity. other great features are the calibrated guide pins or trial implants for every drill diameter so you know after each drill if you are in the correct position and achieving primary stability. the additional "security kit" is fantastic as it provides a perfect "drill stop" for each length and drill diameter so when visibilty is limited and bone quality is poor the danger of drilling too far is eliminated. these drill stops allow precise vertical placement which is important with the one piece TG implant. Good luck with your implant practice. you will really enjoy the Xive system!

to answer your question, if you buy the tray you can use this for both implant types. The XiVE S has an internal implant abutment connection and the XiVE TG has an integrated abutment which uses the same drivers and lab parts like the MP-abutment for the XiVE S. According your case selcetion you can order the TG or S-implants. The surface is a standard high temperature etched and grid blasted one like it is used for ITI oder other implants. The XiVE S has a short polished collar of only 0.4 mm with very good peri-implant tissue response.

be aware that xive as no compatibiliy with any system. I´ve restored a few (internal hex) and they are expensive and the supliers here in Europe are very slow to deliver the prostho pieces. On the other and, if we are interested in internal connection and you to work with friadent, I would advise you to search for the other implants they produced: the Ankylos. This is very good cone morse with excelent results and marginal bone loss (see the literat). Besides he is compatible with neodent system. cheers José Rosa

I've been working with Xive for 6 years now and I am very satisfied. Besides its versatility regarding prosthodontics, and the fact that same kit covers both Xive S and TG, great help is in the fact that it has a 3.0 diameter implant. Needless to say, it can mean a lot, especially in restoring congenitally missing upper second incisors where it can get really tight, or when working in narrow frontal part of lower jaw. Downsides include not too cheap components (Zirconia abutments) and sometimes slow distributor response.

I have used the Xive 3.0 system since it came out with mixed success. All implants integrate with the right conditions, but the Xive 3.0 doesn't have a ball atachment available if you needed to change your prosthetic plan down the line. Sure the 3.0 size is handy in tight spaces( this was the reason I picked it up in the first place) , but the surgical tray is super cluttered and most importantly, sometimes the temp base doesn't disengage from the implant thus compromising your final result. The best system for me is the zimmer tsv.

Thanks for your responses docs and I hope I get some more responses before I make the final decision. About the labset being common in both the systems, I don't think it is so. The product catalog shows two different labsets, unless of course if you guys have learned a way to work around the system. If it is so please tell me how so I can also save some money. About the tempbase getting stuck, our local Friadent man tells me that if you give the tempbase a light horizontal "whack" it disengages easily. He tells me that it is due to a part of the tempbase getting sub crestal especially when the alveolar crest is hammock shaped where mesial and distal are higher and central part lower . It can also occur when the osteotomy socket is slightly longer than the implant length and the operator drives the implant deeper. ( I have asked him after reading the questions posted here!) Any way please keep posting. I am all excited about my question appearing after a few weeks and I have to buy my system at the earliest.

Yeah even in my country the service of Friadent is sluggish. It seems they are maintaining global standards!

the tempbase is locked on forever, sales reps show up but to sell, no one comes out to help clinically or knows what to do.

There is no such thing as a 3.0 Xive. It is a 3.25 that is cleverly marketed. I hope dr.s are aware of this.

I suggest to buy Ankylos that also is provided by Friadent. I have worked with Xive but with Ankylos you can do all kind of implant surgery du to the intenal conncting system between the implant and abutment, which gives you the possibility to submerge the implant subperiotaly so you never lose any bone vertically. All the implant systems have recently copied Ankylos concept.

Check surgical success based on scientific criteria, prosthetic options, service quality and consult users of the system you are considering. We prefer Zimmer.

Be aware that if you need the support it may be hard to find. Talking about Ankylos implants not losing any bone vertically is false. If you place an implant deep enough then you may not see the bone drop below the collar of the implant but you have lost the bone down to the top of the implant. There are plenty of implant systems having you place the implant 2-4mm below the crest. They then show no bone loss. Wrong you just lost 2-4mm. All implants lose bone depending on the patient. You should also look at the restorative side having only platform. Ask a Prosthedontist what they think about the system you are looking into. The easy surgical protocol is important but so is the restorative side.

Anonymous, It is easy to hide behind an anonymous handle. Be a man and admit who you are or at least be smart enough to read the 20 years of literature available for the Ankylos system. How many "revisions" has your Zimmer system taken in 20 years?? The Ankylos system is still the same design that originated 20+ years ago. As for the erroroneous statement that all systems placed subcrestally will demonstrate no bone loss: sorry my poorly read friend, but once again, you show how misinformed you are. It is not the subcrestal placement, but rather the lack of a microgap and the associated accumulation of bacteria that create the bone loss. Using a one piece system will eliminate the problem; or if you want the versatility of a two piece system, you will chose the system with a proven track record: Ankylos. Thanks for the thread.

If the only criteria was available scientific data to make a choice, the whole world would be placing Branemark or Straumann. Why did they prefer Ankylos 20+ years ago when they had fewer experience and data with the system? To question Zimmer, start with Dr. Niznick. Implant material, surface design, easiness of surgical tray and application, availability of biomaterial support (Puros,Zimmer,search for data!), prosthetic options and compatibility of similar systems (check Dr. Niznick again) are equally important criteria. Service quality holds great importance as well. I just want to underline checkpoints and did not hesitate to mention my own choice. I am not an advocate for any system. I was used to use MIS and ITI but I gave up because of poor service quality. That does not make ITI the worst in the world. Now I work with Zimmer which does not mean Zimmer is the best.

The only reason the that Ankylos (like Bicon which it models itself on) need a conical seal ( low microgap) is because they are placed sub-crestally. As to bone loss the only pictures that show bone growing "over " the implant are the marketing ones. Most real world cases show the bone down even to the 1st thread. As to the history these implants have evolved as well (no polished collar) and now are having an internal Hex added to the abutment. There are no RCT that show any Implant "better" than any other , just different and we all use and like aspects of our systems but it does not make them any more sucessful.Also no papers shownig microgap causes bone loss as far as I know.

Dr Fairbairn who models whom? Does Anlylos copy Bicon, or Bicon copy Ankylos? Any way please tell us about Xive in this thread, not Ankylos and Bicon please. How does Xive compare to MIS, Pitt easy, Noble Replace, Oraltronics, Koos (switzerland), Triniton, Zimmer, Ostem, Endopore, . Ez Hitech, Bicon, Bredent. I have to agree with Dr Nikolai though, Friadent service is equally poor everywhere!

In my opinion when you evaluate an implant system you should look at many things most important are implant design and surface treatment .Xive has progressive thread design cutting , condensing & crestal threads .cell plus surface is what makes Xive and Ankylos Unique this surface attracts blood leading to more wetability more cells leading to more and faster osteointegration. other factor also affects your choice like how easy and fast can you place(surgical)&restore(prosthetic) the implant ,success rate according to lit. support from the implant company which if even was not enough should not affect our fair evaluation of the product

Surface technology is the hallmark of implant success. Structure accounts for load distrubution while a fixture is integrating and the importance of that structure diminishes post integration. Xive offers nothing unique in either of these two areas.

Well, tell me what's average about 'cell plus' surface and structure of Xive implants? Who is better than Xive and why? And who offers something unique?

Surface technology is an issue! How much of an issue, I don't know! I can tell you this, I have been using the MIS 7 implant for three years now. It is very easy to place and restore. As far as surface and bone goes, well if the bone is not there it's not going to integrate as well. I place osteogen in the osteotomy site prior to placement, this seems to help. The bicon 5x8, 3,5x11 and the 4x11 are work horses for me in the posy md and mx. The laminos from Impladent Ltd. is also an excellent implant.

The MIS has the same platform as Zimmer but for a fraction of the price. Zimmer is creative with the prosthetic options.

Bicon works fne for me too. But restoration of molars is limited to 3mm well implants (4.5, 5.0 and 6.0). Implants that recieve 2mm post abutments (3.5 and 4.0) are not considered good choice for molar replacement even by the manufacturer. 3.5x8 is only indicated for lower anteriors.

Dr. Fairbairn My son, the english major likes this quote from "Malignant Medical Myths" The main obstacle to progress is not ignorance, but the ILLUSION of knowledge. I agree. So when we hold ourselves to the standard of expert, it is best to understand the topic. If you check the data, the microgap is not about the placement, but rather how well the implant and abutment are machined. With a true morse taper (less than 7 degrees) the fit can be a cold weld in the case of Bicon or a friction fit with no spacing as in Ankylos. This leaves no space for bacterial contamination, similar to a one piece implant. Next, Ankylos is not making and internal hex, that would eliminate the beauty of the morse cone attachment. Instead, the internal orientation index is used only to allow accurate placement of the abutment. The morse taper positions the abutment tight against the internal wall of the implant, with no gap and no bugs. Keep reading (and posting) for all of our benefits; knowledge is king.

Thanks for the inputs doc, but weren't we supposed to be discussing Xive implants? I rather have you all tell me more about Xive, that's why I started this thread. I have some decisions to make and a discussion in the direction of Xive would be highly appreciated. Thank you all for your time.

Apologies Dr. S , Xive S is the way to go for the flexibility and good primary stability ,an execellent system from an excellent company. Although not a regular user just called them late yesterday and the order was delivered first thing this morning, great service. As to the other issues the father of the morse taper Tom Driskell in the early 80s developed this system of attachment with sub crestal placement in mind where bacterial abscence is critical.We all understand the morse taper concept which has been in use sucessfully since 86. A combination of a hex ( internal orientation index) with the morse taper was merely what a rep told me was to come. We are always learning and willing to learn

I just want to contribute with my point of view! Being swedish, the first implants I ever placed was Nobel Brånemark system and then Astra. Since then I have been working with a lot of different systems - including Strauman, Sterngold, Lifecore. I have also worked with less wellknown implants, mainly to evaluate whether my sucessrate would drop using less wxpensive products. Actually I found that I had more or less the same result regardless which system was used. To the best of my knowledge the procedure and how careful you are in the surgical procedure is what matters the most. Of course it is always difficult to compare different patients due to difference in health and a multitude of other factors that influence sucessrate. The main advantage with the "biggest ones" is the studies that has been carried out regarding them. Anyway there is a lot of litterature about all this, unfortunately a lot of it is not independent!

Thank you Dr Peter and Dr Par M. Parson for your feed back.

After a little search in the attic we found the origional paper by Tom Driskell on the Stryker implant system which then became the basis for Bicon. A good read after after 25 years, shows how little has really changed. Can forward to Dennis Thompson if he so wishes.

"True Morse taper" per wikipedia is between 1 degree 25 minuts and 1 degree 30 minutes, everything else is a screw retained conical fit (Ankylose - 5.9 degree, Astra - 11 degree, NobelActive -12 degree,...). The real challenge for Bicon implant is the accuracy of implant level impression and calibration of the tapping force required to insert the abutment. The wider the angle gets, the more predictable vertical insertion becomes. I did the test with Astra implant analog and the abutment, measured the analog/abutment assembly after applying finger pressure to the screw and then took another measurement after 20 Ncm of torque was applied. The difference was 40 microns. Removed the abutment and engaged it with the analog 3 times (abutment was removed after each engagement) at 20 Ncm - difference between the first and last engagement at 20 Ncm was 10 microns +/- 3 microns. Lesson i learned - when impression is taken (open tray or closed tray), connect the impression coping with a torque wrench set at the same level as for an abutment connection. Lab tech should do the same when working on the model.

Dear Dr. S. In last 8 Years I have used about 6 Different Implant System. I found my success rate with all the systems is more or less same. I personally feel the success of the Implant mostly depends upon the case selection, Sterilization and your surgical procedure and much less on the Implant. But still when we are looking for a system the points should be: Surface Treatment Wide range in Diameter, Lengths, Shapes, Techniques (Single stage or double stage). Precision in Instruments May be certifications. (some people think that certification is important) Service Technical support Now from last two years I am using Leader Italia Implant System. I am quite satisfied with this system because Surface treatment is organic acid etch result is really very very fast osseointegration. Single Kit for all the Implants. Let it be single stage, double stage, conical, cylindrical, Internal hex or external hex. Ball head, or straight or conical head etc. a wide range of diameter (2.3 mm to 6 mm) and length (8 mm to 18 mm). all the implants with a single kit only. Precision is 10 microns with 12 axis CNC machines. (Good enough) FDA Approved. and I feel the most economic European system. I don't know about the service in your region but in India the service and technical support is wonderful. what else you are looking for (A big name or the quality, service, economy etc). Wish you all the best.

And who do you have as your dealer in your country Dr Sharma?

Dear Dr. S I really appreciate all the comments , I have used most well known systems and I was fond of Zimmer for quite long time.and I have been using Xive for 5 years now , so getting straight to the point you want . Xive system is one of the top leading systems in market , excellent geometry ( in spite I would personally prefer little tapered ), excellent cell plus surface that promotes super fast oseo integration , perfect abutment connection with noooooo loose screws ( same platform of Frialit 2) with full success estheticaly for more than 20 years, enables to perform all prosthetic options with wide range of abutments to choose , great for immediate loading and immediate temporization on the implant holder (tempbase), options for custom made temporary gingival forners , Xive has all the instrumentation and accessories (osteotomes, protectors , sinus lift kit, microsaw system , membranes and bone grafting materials , tacks and pins and all you can need in advanced practice of implant dentistry from one system and company , beside Xive is fully supported by research and wide clinical success . congratulations you have choosen one of the most reliable systems in implant dentistry.

Thanks for the guidance Dr Salloum! For the transgigival Implants would I need separate inventory?

You use the same surgical kit for both XIVE and XIVE TG , but some difference in inventory of prosthetic components

Is there truth in the rumor that Xive system is facing problem in sales in the European markets? I heard it is no longer popular there? I hope I am wrong. Are there any sales figures?

Is any one reading my question above?

i ve a patient with 9.1mm bone in the upper molar region. I use xive system, but not too sure about success rate of 8mm implants. Pls could anyone guide me the longevity of 8mm implants. Width is adequate for 4.5mm diameter.

I am fairly new to implant placement, although I have placed a few Bicon implants-so far without problems. It is a fairly expensive system to use and am wondering if there is another similiar system I could use that is compatible with my surgical kit, that would allow me to offer implants at a lower cost, or if I should offer a different implant altogether, and invest in a different surgical kit? Any advice as to which system to choose would be much appreciated. I am aware that there are a number of copy systems available, but are any of them compatible with the Bicon system and their surgical/restorative system, that I can offer to patients where cost is an issue?