Straumann Dental Implants
Straumann is the implant system most often used as the reference point in clinical research. This guide explains what its systems actually are, decodes the trademarked terminology, and separates the manufacturer's claims from the independent evidence.
At a glance
- Signature material
- Roxolid, a titanium-zirconium alloy
- Signature surface
- SLActive, a chemically active, water-attracting surface
- Connection
- TorcFit conical connection on newer lines
- Price tier
- Premium, typically the highest-cost tier in Canada
- Evidence base
- Very large; frequently the comparison system in independent studies
- Best known for
- Long-term documentation and tissue-level design
Who Straumann is
Straumann began in 1954 in Waldenburg, Switzerland, as a research institute working on metal alloys, originally for watchmaking and orthopaedics, not dentistry. It moved into dental implants in 1974, which makes it one of the small handful of manufacturers with an unbroken half-century of implant production. The company is headquartered in Basel and now owns several other implant brands, including Neodent and Anthogyr.
The detail that matters most to a patient is not the company's age but its relationship with the International Team for Implantology (ITI), an academic network founded in 1980. Straumann funds and collaborates with the ITI, and a large share of the long-term clinical research in implant dentistry has run through that relationship. The practical consequence is that Straumann implants have been studied for longer, and in more independent centres, than almost any competitor. When a research paper needs a well-documented control implant to compare something against, it is very often a Straumann.
A large evidence base does not automatically mean a better outcome in your mouth. What it does mean is that the failure modes, the long-term bone behaviour and the performance in difficult cases are unusually well characterised. With a newer or less-studied system, your dentist is relying more on manufacturer data and less on independent follow-up. That is a real difference, but it is a difference in certainty, not necessarily in result.
Tissue level and bone level: the difference that actually matters
Straumann's implant families split along one structural line, and understanding it makes the rest of the range easy to follow. Every two-piece implant has a joint where the implant meets the part that carries the crown. The question is where that joint sits.
Straumann built its reputation on tissue-level implants, where a smooth polished collar lifts that joint up out of the bone and into the gum. Most competitors standardised on bone-level designs instead. Straumann now makes both, but it is one of the few manufacturers still actively developing tissue-level systems, and its own literature argues the tissue-level approach reduces marginal bone loss and simplifies treatment by removing a second surgical step.
Straumann's clinical summary comparing the two approaches cites a one-stage procedure reducing soft-tissue disturbance during healing, the absence of a microgap at bone level as potentially preferable in periodontally compromised patients, and machined-collar designs being associated with lower marginal bone loss. These points are referenced to independent papers, Vouros et al. (2012), Derks et al. (2016) and Hermann et al. (2011), rather than to internal data, which is a meaningful distinction.
Tissue-level is not universally better. Because the polished collar sits above the bone, the design is harder to use where the gum is thin or the implant sits at the front of the mouth, since a metal collar can become visible. Bone-level designs give the dentist more freedom to angle the crown and hide the junction. This is genuinely case-dependent, and a dentist choosing bone level for a front tooth is making a normal clinical decision, not a compromise.
Decoding the two trademarks you will actually hear
Roxolid
Roxolid is Straumann's titanium-zirconium alloy, used instead of commercially pure titanium. Adding zirconium raises the metal's mechanical strength, and the entire point of that is diameter: a stronger alloy lets the manufacturer make a thinner implant that still resists fracture. If you have a narrow ridge of bone, a Roxolid implant may allow placement where a wider pure-titanium implant would have required a bone graft first. Straumann's Mini Implant brochure states Roxolid mini implants show 22 % higher fatigue strength than a comparable 2.4 mm titanium mini implant.
Roxolid is not a different kind of implant and it is not "better titanium" in a general sense. It is a stronger alloy whose practical benefit is narrower implants. If your ridge is wide, the advantage largely disappears. It is still a metal implant, it is not the metal-free option. That is zirconia, covered on our implant materials page.
SLActive
Almost every modern implant has a roughened surface, because roughness gives bone cells more to grip. Straumann's baseline roughened surface is called SLA, produced by sandblasting and acid-etching. SLActive is the same roughening plus a chemical treatment that leaves the surface strongly water-attracting, and it is shipped sealed in liquid so it never dries out before placement.
The claimed benefit is speed. Straumann states SLActive reduces the healing period from six to eight weeks down to three to four for most indications. The company also reports a distinct ultra-fine topography that increases surface area by more than 50 % compared with SLA.
Straumann's SLActive brochure reports a 98.2 % ten-year survival rate under immediate loading, from a randomised controlled multicentre study of 64 patients across three European centres. It further reports a 100 % success rate in irradiated head-and-neck cancer patients at one year, sustained at five-year follow-up, from a randomised clinical trial of 102 implants in 20 patients, and encouraging outcomes in diabetic patients and smokers.
These are genuinely strong results and they come from randomised trials, which is the right study design. But the numbers are presented in a manufacturer's sales brochure, and the trials are small, the irradiated-patient study reported at five years was down to 15 patients. Small studies produce impressive percentages easily; a single additional failure moves a 100 % figure a long way. The honest summary is that SLActive has credible evidence for faster early healing and for use in medically compromised patients, and that "faster healing" is a real benefit mainly if you are a candidate for immediate loading or you heal poorly. For a healthy patient with good bone and no time pressure, the practical difference between SLA and SLActive at the ten-year mark is much smaller than the marketing implies.
The Straumann system lineup
These are the systems documented in Straumann's own current literature. Each page explains what the system is for, who it suits, and where its limits are.
Straumann TLX
A tapered tissue-level implant designed for immediate placement into a fresh extraction socket, with the restorative joint kept above the bone.
Straumann BLX
The bone-level counterpart to TLX, for cases where the implant top needs to finish at the bone crest, commonly the aesthetic zone.
Straumann Tissue Level
The original Standard and Standard Plus line. The most extensively documented implant design in the published literature.
Straumann Mini Implant
A 2.4 mm one-piece implant used specifically to stop a lower denture from moving. Not a substitute for a standard implant.
Straumann Zygomatic
For severe upper-jaw bone loss. Anchors in the cheekbone rather than the jaw, avoiding major bone grafting.
Practical considerations for patients in Canada
Cost. Straumann sits at the top of the price range. The implant component itself is only part of what you pay, surgical time, the abutment, the crown and any grafting usually exceed the fixture cost, but a Straumann case will generally be quoted higher than the same case with a value-tier system.
Parts availability. This is the argument that carries the most weight and gets discussed the least. An implant is meant to last decades, and at some point the crown on top of it will need replacing. That requires components matching your specific implant. A large manufacturer with a fifty-year history and Canadian distribution is a safer bet for parts in 2050 than a small or newly imported brand. Straumann also maintains compatibility with its older lines, which matters if you already have Straumann implants.
Finding a dentist. Straumann is widely distributed in Canada, so availability is rarely the constraint. Surgeon experience with the specific system matters more than the brand on the box.
Questions worth asking your dentist
- Which Straumann system are you planning to use, and why that one for my case rather than another?
- Is this tissue level or bone level, and what made you choose that for this position in my mouth?
- Am I getting SLActive or the standard SLA surface, and does that change my healing timeline or the cost?
- Is Roxolid being used because my ridge is narrow, or is it simply what you stock?
- What is the cost difference if a different system would work equally well in my case?
- Will you give me the implant's reference number and platform in writing for my records?
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Straumann TLX and BLX?
Both are tapered implants on the TorcFit connection and share one drill set. TLX is tissue level, so the joint between implant and abutment sits above the bone in the gum. BLX is bone level, with the implant top finishing at the bone crest, which gives more flexibility for visible front teeth.
Is SLActive worth paying for?
SLActive is Straumann's hydrophilic surface, and the company reports faster early healing, roughly three to four weeks instead of six to eight. The benefit is most relevant if you are a candidate for immediate loading or heal poorly. For a healthy patient with good bone and no time pressure, the difference at ten years is small.
Are Straumann and Neodent the same thing?
No. Neodent is owned by the Straumann Group but is a separate system with its own Grand Morse connection and components. Straumann parts do not fit Neodent implants, and Straumann's research base does not transfer to Neodent.
References
- Vouros ID, Kalpidis CD, Horvath A, Petrie A, Donos N. Systematic assessment of clinical outcomes in bone-level and tissue-level endosseous dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(6):1359–74.
- Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: prevalence of peri-implantitis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(1):43–9.
- Hermann JS, Jones AA, Bakaeen LG, Buser D, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Influence of a machined collar on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. J Periodontol. 2011;82(9):1329–38.
- Straumann. SLActive: Performance Beyond Imagination, Maximizing Treatment Success. Manufacturer brochure USLIT-1030.
- Straumann. TLX Implant System, System Overview. Manufacturer document CALIT-1432.
- Straumann. Compared to a BL system, what are the advantages of a TL system? Manufacturer document NAMLIT.1431.
Technical specifications on this page were compiled from Straumann's own publicly available product literature. DentalImplantInfo.ca is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by Straumann. Straumann, Roxolid, SLActive, SLA, TLX, BLX and TorcFit are trademarks of the Straumann Group, used here for identification and educational purposes. Manufacturer claims are attributed as such and should be discussed with a licensed dentist.