More than flexible. A new kind of esthetics.

For a natural look and feel. The Straumann® Bone Level Implant Line provides great flexibility to deliver an esthetically pleasing solution to patients.

Simplified handling with the CrossFit® connection

  • Makes handling easier and provides confidence about component positioning
  • Ensures precision against rotation
  • Offers restorative flexibility and long-term mechanical stability

Pleasing esthetic results with Consistent Emergence Profiles™

  • Optimizes and simplifies soft tissue management
  • Eases the fabrication of temporary and final restorations

Optimized crestal bone preservation with Bone Control Design™

  • Respects the biological distance/width
  • Optimal position of smooth and rough surface interface
  • Microgap control
  • Biomechanical implant design
  • Implant surface osteoconductivity

Well-proven new materials

  • Titanium Grade 4
  • Roxolid®: A titanium-zirconium alloy stronger than titanium6,7 and specifically designed for the use in dental implantology

Innovative surfaces

  • SLA®, the reliable and scientifically well-documented surface, with predictable long-term clinical data3,4
  • SLActive®, the next generation in implant surface technology reduces the critical healing period down to 3 – 4 weeks5 and minimizes the potential for early implant failure


1 Scacchi M. et al., The development of the ITI DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM. Part 2: 1998-2000: Steps into the next millennium. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 22-32 2 Based upon global Straumann® SLActive® complaint statistics 2005-2006 3 Fischer K., Stenberg T. al ‘Prospective 10-year Cohort Study Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on Implant-Supported Full-Arch Maxillary Prostheses. Part 1: Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implants and Mucosal Tissue.’ Clin Implant Dent Relat Research. 2012 Dec;14(6):808-15 4 Fischer K, Stenberg T. ‘Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT) on implant-supported full-arch maxillary prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic outcomes and maintenance.’ Clin Implant Dent Relat Research.. 2013 Aug;15(4):498-508 5 Oates TW. et al. ‘Enhanced implant stability with a chemically modified SLA® surface: a randomized pilot study.’ Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2007;22(5):755–760. 6 Norm ASTM F67 (states min. tensile strength of annealed titanium). 7 Data on file for Straumann cold-worked titanium and Roxolid® Implants. 8 Gottlow J et al. ‘Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig.’ Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2012; 14: 538-545 9 Wen B et al. ‘The osseointegration behavior of titanium-zirconium implants in ovariectomized rabbits.’ Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Feb 21. 10 Barter S et al. ‘A pilot study to evaluate the success and survival rate of titanium-zirconium implants in partially edentulous patients: results after 24 months of follow-up.’ Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jul;23(7):873-81 11 Freiberger P, Al-Nawas B. ‘Non-interventional Study on Success and Survival of TiZr Implants.’ EAO 2012 Copenhagen; 305 Posters – Implant Therapy Outcomes, Surgical Aspects 12 Benic GI et al. ‘Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study.’ Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2013; [Epub ahead of print] 13 If a GBR procedure can be avoided 14 Buser D. et al. ‚Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface.’ J. Dent. Res. 2004 Jul;83(7):529–33. 15 Schwarz F. et al. ‘Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early osseous integration at chemically modified and conventional SLA® titanium implants: Preliminary results of a pilot study in dogs.’ Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2007;11(4):481–488. 16 Schwarz F, et al. ‘Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early subepithelial connective tissue attachment at chemically modified and conventional SLA® titanium implants. A pilot study in dogs.’ Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2007;11(3):245–455. 17 Schwarz F, et al. ‘Effects of surface hydrophilicity and microtopography on early stages of soft and hard tissue integration at non-submerged titanium implants: An immunohistochemical study in dogs.’ J. Periodontol. 2007;78(11):2171–2184. 18 Schwarz F,et al. ‘Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium: A pilot study in dogs.’ J. Clin. Periodontol. 2007;34(1):78–86. 19 Zöllner et al. ’Immediate and early non-occlusal loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive®) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: interim results from a prospective multicentre randomized-controlled study.’ Clinical Oral Implants Research, 19(5), 442-450,2008. 20 Nicolau P. et al. ‘Immediate and early loading of chronically modified implants in posterior jaws: 3-year results from a prospective randomized study‘ Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Aug;15(4):600-612 21 Bornstein mm et al. ‘Early loading at 21 days of non-submerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: 3-year results of a prospective study in the posterior mandible’. J. Periodontol. 2010 Jun;81 (6):809–18. 22 Raghavendra S, et al. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2005 May–Jun;20(3):425–31. 23 Lang, NP., et al. ‘Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans.’ Clin Oral Implants.Res 22.4 (2011): 349–56 24 Schwarz, F., et al., ‘Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at chemically modified (SLActive®) and conventional SLA titanium implants: a pilot study in dogs’ J Clin.Periodontol. 34.1 (2007): 78–86 25 Schwarz, F., et al., ‘Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at non-submerged and submerged chemically modified (SLActive®) and conventional SLA titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs.’ J Clin.Periodontol. 35.1 (2008): 64–75. 26 Gahlert M et al. ‚ In vivo performance of zirconia and titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in mini pig maxillae.’ Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Mar;23(3):281- 6 27 Bormann KH et al. ‚ Biomechanical evaluation of a microstructured zirconia implant by a removal torque comparison with a standard Ti-SLA implant.’ Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct; 23(10):1210-6