Any truth to Zimmer's trabecular implant?

Quote




Anonymous said:
I know what problems it could cause but I can't see what problem it solves. Zimmer's website references a number of studies on its Screw-Vent with 98% success and it's brochure shows that the tapered Screw-Vent had high initial stability allowing immediate loading. Zimmer sells HA coated implants that will bond with bone. With Screw-Vent's long-term success rates because of its proven surfaces and tapered with threads over the entire surface, there is only one reason to now promote a Trabecular implant with a straight porous surface replacing half the threads - charging an extra $50. Because of the increased potential for complications if the porous surface becomes exposed, and fracture because the center core needs to be reduced in diameter to make room for the porous material, I predict this implant will go the way of Innova and NobelPerfect.
Click to expand...

Hey Nostradamus, take a good look at the implant to see where the TM starts. If that much bone loss occures, everyones implant will be coming out. I guess you could make the same prediction about Zimmers HA implant considering its in the same spot on the implant. You must be a 3i guy which would explain your primary concern being bone loss. This whole thread is filled with BS from little punks that dont know thier ass from a hole in the ground. History will be the teacher and my "prediction" is time will tell so stop spouting off the same ole blah blah blah we all already know professor.
 




Anonymous said:
Wow- you really are pretty thick. Let's review your lapses in intelligence here:

"...the only companies I see encouraging Dr.'s to use the Impression Posts as final abutments"

My comment was " it is lying. Just like you guys do when you tell your customers that they can use the fixture mount as a final abutment"

Do you see? Let me take you to school once again. Impression posts are different from fixture mounts. You just verified my point. They are two different things- not one.

Next, you claim that the companies listed advocate using the impression copings as final abutments. You are right on 2 of the 4- the other two you are wrong. I'll let you do some work and figure out which is which.

Third, once again you are batting exactly .500 (which, in this case, is not a good thing) when you claim that the companies sell from the perspective of "it's cheaper" and "it works". (Hint- it is not the same two as in the former point.)

Finally, thank you for highlighting for us all (reps and clinicians alike) how poorly trained and misinformed the Zimmer sales team is on their own implants as well as the selling philosophies and education in general on their competitors. Also you keenly show us all that you don't read or spell very well. Well done!


HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!

Keep up the great work, Zimmer! Thank you!
Click to expand...

Hey Wes, stick to whacking off in your new cubicle for BH listening to your Atomic Fart app on your iPhone. That is where you belong!
 








Anonymous said:
Hey Nostradamus, take a good look at the implant to see where the TM starts. If that much bone loss occures, everyones implant will be coming out. I guess you could make the same prediction about Zimmers HA implant considering its in the same spot on the implant. You must be a 3i guy which would explain your primary concern being bone loss. This whole thread is filled with BS from little punks that dont know thier ass from a hole in the ground. History will be the teacher and my "prediction" is time will tell so stop spouting off the same ole blah blah blah we all already know professor.
Click to expand...

HA is a high density, non porous surface whereas Trabecular metal, like Innova's beaded surface, is porous and is not so far down that it won't get exposed - sometimes even at time of placement in narrow ridges. BUT you have not answered the question how replacing half the threaded surface that is needed for initial stability and therefor immediate loading.
 




Anonymous said:
HA is a high density, non porous surface whereas Trabecular metal, like Innova's beaded surface, is porous and is not so far down that it won't get exposed - sometimes even at time of placement in narrow ridges. BUT you have not answered the question how replacing half the threaded surface that is needed for initial stability and therefor immediate loading.
Click to expand...

Completion of question.....
BUT you have not answered the question how replacing half the threaded surface that is needed for initial stability and therefor immediate loading, IS. BENEFICIAL TO CLINICAL SUCCESS?
 




Anonymous said:
HA is a high density, non porous surface whereas Trabecular metal, like Innova's beaded surface, is porous and is not so far down that it won't get exposed - sometimes even at time of placement in narrow ridges. BUT you have not answered the question how replacing half the threaded surface that is needed for initial stability and therefor immediate loading.
Click to expand...

Why would you use a TM implant in an immediate load case? The reason to use TM is so you can load an implant faster than existing implants that you have to put to sleep for months. If you are drilling into rock hard bone you don't a TM implant.
 




Anonymous said:
HA is a high density, non porous surface whereas Trabecular metal, like Innova's beaded surface, is porous and is not so far down that it won't get exposed - sometimes even at time of placement in narrow ridges. BUT you have not answered the question how replacing half the threaded surface that is needed for initial stability and therefor immediate loading.
Click to expand...

Look newbie, we all know what HA is and dont need a lesson on what you think. 5mm of bone loss in a narrow ridge, seriously? Why would anyone place an implant where they thought they would get that type of bone loss. Keep studying and come back when you have a clue.
 




Anonymous said:
Why would you use a TM implant in an immediate load case? The reason to use TM is so you can load an implant faster than existing implants that you have to put to sleep for months. If you are drilling into rock hard bone you don't a TM implant.
Click to expand...

Bingo - every root form implant (for the most part) has FDA approval for IL.
 




"HA is a high density, non porous surface whereas Trabecular metal, like Innova's beaded surface, is porous and is not so far down that it won't get exposed - sometimes even at time of placement in narrow ridges. BUT you have not answered the question how replacing half the threaded surface that is needed for initial stability and therefor immediate loading."

HA, are you kidding me? I thought that material was banned as a hazard? Is anyone still placing anything into humans containing HA?

I don't even want that stuff NEAR me, or in the trunk, in any form. Bad JuJu.
 




HA is still on many implants as a coating or nano deposited offering. If your implant has it as a surface, it tells you your placing a less than optimal product in today's market. It's not dangerous, just a cheaper, older option that better systems have smartly moved away from. It was thought at one time a generation or more ago that the turnover of this product's attachment to host bone would happen. It doesn't. It can be a problem if the coating is exposed or gets perio involvement in cracks or fissures in the coating over time.
 




Anonymous said:
Why would you use a TM implant in an immediate load case? The reason to use TM is so you can load an implant faster than existing implants that you have to put to sleep for months. If you are drilling into rock hard bone you don't a TM implant.
Click to expand...

If you can get 35ncm of initial stability, you can immediate load a screw implant. The only way you would know if you can't get this with the tapered scrEw-vent its to try it - I doubt Zimmer is recommending that?
 




Anonymous said:
If you can get 35ncm of initial stability, you can immediate load a screw implant. The only way you would know if you can't get this with the tapered scrEw-vent its to try it - I doubt Zimmer is recommending that?
Click to expand...

Anyone with good intitial stability can IL (out of function) any Dental Implant. Most of them have FDA approval to do so. The new Trabecular Metal Implant is in the same category as far as IL (out of function) is concerned. What the new Trabecular Metal Implant offers that is different from other Implants is significantly faster Full Oclusal Load capabilities.
 




Anonymous said:
If you can get 35ncm of initial stability, you can immediate load a screw implant. The only way you would know if you can't get this with the tapered scrEw-vent its to try it - I doubt Zimmer is recommending that?
Click to expand...

I mean ...recommending to first try inserting a tapered Screw-Vent and then remove it if it doesn't achieve the immediate load threshold of 35Ncm and replace it immediately with a TM implant so that you can load it in maybe 6-8 weeks instead of waiting 8-10 weeks. It is well documented that bone forms faster on an HA surface so why not just use the HA coated Screw-Vent and either load it immediately or wait 6/8 weeks in soft bone? Given the fact that the TM implant has half the thread surface of a Screw-Vent and is primarily straight, it is a poorer design for immediate load than the tapered Screw-Vent and it has no studies showing that it could be loaded in 6 weeks in bone quality compared to a Taperd Screw-Vent in the same bone.
The only justification for Zimmer selling the TM implant is it's $54 increased price. It comes at a greater risk of contamination if the TM surface becomes exposed, the increased risk of not achieving adequate initial stability in soft bone to achieve Osseointegration because of the lack of threads, and an increased risk of implant fracture in insertion or in function because threads in the mid-section were removed, leaving a narrow core to make room for TM with no structural strength.
I am not a "newby" but in fact am the inventor of the Straight (1986) and tapered(1999) Screw-Vend. I know how to improve the Screw-Vent which is why the Legacry2 was Voted one of the top 25 implant products of 2011 by Dental Products Review's readers. Zimmer apparently does not understand why the Tapered Screw-Vent was so successful, or they would not have made the Trabecular Metal version of the Screw-Vent.
 








Anonymous said:
I mean ...recommending to first try inserting a tapered Screw-Vent and then remove it if it doesn't achieve the immediate load threshold of 35Ncm and replace it immediately with a TM implant so that you can load it in maybe 6-8 weeks instead of waiting 8-10 weeks. It is well documented that bone forms faster on an HA surface so why not just use the HA coated Screw-Vent and either load it immediately or wait 6/8 weeks in soft bone? Given the fact that the TM implant has half the thread surface of a Screw-Vent and is primarily straight, it is a poorer design for immediate load than the tapered Screw-Vent and it has no studies showing that it could be loaded in 6 weeks in bone quality compared to a Taperd Screw-Vent in the same bone.
The only justification for Zimmer selling the TM implant is it's $54 increased price. It comes at a greater risk of contamination if the TM surface becomes exposed, the increased risk of not achieving adequate initial stability in soft bone to achieve Osseointegration because of the lack of threads, and an increased risk of implant fracture in insertion or in function because threads in the mid-section were removed, leaving a narrow core to make room for TM with no structural strength.
I am not a "newby" but in fact am the inventor of the Straight (1986) and tapered(1999) Screw-Vend. I know how to improve the Screw-Vent which is why the Legacry2 was Voted one of the top 25 implant products of 2011 by Dental Products Review's readers. Zimmer apparently does not understand why the Tapered Screw-Vent was so successful, or they would not have made the Trabecular Metal version of the Screw-Vent.
Click to expand...

Agreed - why are you on here jackass? You have nothing to do with Zimmer or the Copycat2 implant anymore. How's fired.......retirement?
 




Here's a first: I'm agreeing with Niznick. The trabecular implant is having fracture issues upon insertion at the apical tip where it goes from threaded to trabecular. They are issuing adjusted protocols to docs as we speak. Not a good start, and could spell lights out for this unproven and unnecessary design. Zimmer has no track reord in designing dental implants so they'll get no wiggle room on this.
 




Anonymous said:
Here's a first: I'm agreeing with Niznick. The trabecular implant is having fracture issues upon insertion at the apical tip where it goes from threaded to trabecular. They are issuing adjusted protocols to docs as we speak. Not a good start, and could spell lights out for this unproven and unnecessary design. Zimmer has no track reord in designing dental implants so they'll get no wiggle room on this.
Click to expand...

I can certainly understand how this might happen, but where in the US have these issues been reported?

This is the first Ive heard of this, and would appreciate knowing more.
 




I'm not sure, but there has been an urgent change of protocol letter sent out by Zimmer because of this problem to their customers. Confidence can't be high in continuing to use this unproven, design-challenged product when there are major problems out of the gate.
 




Anonymous said:
I'm not sure, but there has been an urgent change of protocol letter sent out by Zimmer because of this problem to their customers. Confidence can't be high in continuing to use this unproven, design-challenged product when there are major problems out of the gate.
Click to expand...

It was an IFU update, not a change of protocol letter. Confidence in this product could not be "higher". TM technology has been proven in the Orthopeadic space for 14 years. Keep grasping at straws. It just makes you look dumb.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote