Materialise Sues Nobel Biocare in the US

I use primarily Nobel implants but use the Simplant (Materialise) software for diagnosing and treatment planning. If Nobel did take Simplant's intelectual property I'd love to see them have to pay big time for it. I like the Nobel product, but the company has pissed me off lately. It's all about the $$$, and I think they think they can throw their weight around and do whatever they want. I think Nobel needs to be more responsive to US, their customers. Simplant is a relatively little company that has developed a great product and I hope they get the regonition/payoff they are due.

Nobel Biocare has filed a lawsuit in the US against Materialise Group and its unit Materialise Dental, seeking a determination that Nobel Biocare does not infringe Materialise’s relevant patents, Weidmann added. Everyone loves to shoot at the successful. To think that a publicly owned company such as Nobel would purposely bring a product to market that blatantly infringes on another companies patent is naive. It is people who are unfamiliar with corporate product development who would think any company would spend millions of dollars investing in a product knowing that the product is just an illegal infringement of an existing product. We must remember that there are very few totally original ideas or inventions. Most are improvements on existing products or ideas. The improvements or differentiation of the product is always up for interpretation. That is why any company can sue any other company to try and protect their prized products. This latest round of legal wrangling is in response to the lawsuit that Nobel initiated against Materialise in June of 2007. Nobel initiated the lawsuit 5 months ago. This counter suit by Materialise is a normal legal response to Materialise being sued in June. This make great press for Materialise, and that is primarily what is behind all the discussion. The lawsuit does not have the gravity for Nobel that everyone is assuming it does. Anyone who believes that a lawsuit of this kind will "Take down" a large cap company like Nobel does not understand the history of cases like this. Bottom line is that after years of legal filings and court hearings, one of these two companies will pay the other one some money. That settlement will never exceed the sales revenue that has been generated by either Nobel's or Materialise subject product. No product will be pulled from the market. Look at Pharma. companies trying to protect their drug patents about to go generic. They sue each other over infringement issues as a matter of policy. None of the those companies "are taken down." Maybe this case will have a resolution like the Discus Dental vs. Britesmile lawsuit of 4 years ago. The settlement was the larger market player, Discus purchasing Britesmile for $35 million. Effectively eliminating their competition. That settled the infringement lawsuit that Britesmile brought against Discus. Nobel is not going anywhere. They are a corporate powerhouse backed by public money with strong products. MOney will settle this, and that is what Materialise is looking for, a pay day.

I do not agree with comments of DDESS. There are enough cases to demonstrate that big boys try to scuttle the little ones with sheer power of money and battery of lawyers. I have been at this end myself, where the company was pompous enough to even tell me this. To put things in perspective for DDESS (whatever it means, trying to hide real identity?), Nobel (Steri-Oss) has "stolen" the original design of CamLog. Steri-Oss was going to be the US distributor for CamLog. I have seen posters in the office of Dr. Axel Kirsch. Steri-Oss/Nobel made changes in the design of CamLog prosthetic platform to circumvent the patent of Dr. Axel Kirsch, and blatantly stole the design. Dr. Kirsch could do nothing. There are other leaders such as Straumann, Zimmer, Astra, 3i; and no one is shooting them. Why is everyone shooting Nobel? The answer is the former CEO had a strategy to "fatten the cow before the feast". In other words, she wanted to increase the top-line of the company to a high level to ensure a higher price to sell Nobel. To achieve this, she did some really dumb things that have never been done in the medical industry before. Her aggressive policy of "buying" universities, faculties, speakers, bordered on inviting the wrath of US Federal authorities. I am surprised that till date no US Federal authority has taken action against Nobel. I do not know any other medical company (Medtronic, Zimmer Orthopaedics, Biomet, J&J, etc.) which have a policy such as of Nobel. And for good reason, because in medical field, such things are illegal. Nobel should be careful and try to grow in a good way. Their new implant NobelActive is nice. However again, they are pushing the limits in marketing by making a frivolous claim - that of changing the direction of implant placement mid-way. Is this required in the first place? And what are the long-term results? By just Prof Bichacho saying it works, is NOT good enough. Some years ago with Nobel Direct, Dr. Mick Dragoo had said the same thing and the disastrous results are there for all to see. If Nobel will behave more responsibly, it would get more positive response from the dental community and it would then truly be a global leader. They have everything going for them: all the right products. All they need to do now is stop "buying" customers.

I would hope that if Nobel is going around, "stealing" designs from other companies, and Nobel is "fattening the cow" and is loaded with cash then it would be a prime target for an infringement lawsuit by Camlog. If on theother hand Nobel improved an existing design of a patent than under US law, they could apply for patent for that improvement. You cite a quote by former CEO about increasing the value of the company. Well in business school, all corporations primary responsibility is to increase shareholder equity, i.e. increase the value of the company. There is nothing unethical or illegal about that. As far as your claim that she was doing this to sell the company. Well, any investment analysis would reveal that the market capitalization of Nobel Biocare, something like $10 billion, based on a share price of 300 Fr. is an overvalued takeover target based on the companies yearly sales. As far as Nobel being an unethical illegally run syndicate that buys Universities. I believe that any University that did accept honorariums or donations from Nobel did so only after doing due dilligence in insuring that these funds where given under the laws of the US and state governments. No mention is made of the benefits to the dental schools and the dental students, that have accrued from these generous contributions. It is obvious that you have no true understanding how corporations work. Where is your erroneous and incorrect information coming from? The Osseonews Blog? DentalTown Blogs? Jerry Niznick? There is much misinformation being circulated about Nobel that is laughable. The company IS a global leader in its field. Its been around for 41 years, there is no history of any criminal or unethical behavior. Companies sue other companies all the time. It is civil in nature, not criminal as you suggest. Stick with the dentistry, which you are probably very good at. Your conspiracy theories about Nobel are entertaining, but have no basis in reality.

Medtronic has never done anything unethical or illegal? Look in their fiasco with knowingly selling defibulators that did not work. Don't make claims you have idea about. There is no reason to make negative comments about a company unless you can cite specific sources. All your information is anecdotal, which is great for opinions. But you are trying to make truthful statements and you really do not have the proper information to make the comments you do. Your statements are erroneous, incorrect and misleading.

I wonder if these guys are hired by Nobel to peruse the blogs and respond? What do you say Counselor?

The Scariest thing about Nobel is they are the #1 Implant company in regards to sales. They seem bullet proof to any scandals as well. In follow up to Daruwalla's comments:Nobel should be careful and try to grow in a good way. Their new implant NobelActive is nice. However again, they are pushing the limits in marketing by making a frivolous claim - that of changing the direction of implant placement mid-way. Is this required in the first place? And what are the long-term results? By just Prof Bichacho saying it works, is NOT good enough. This is their "new" implant without a shred of science? And clinicians will be buying this and placing in patients heads? There is something morally and ethically wrong with this company, but more so with the people that continue to patronize the company.

The NobelActive has not even been launched yet but ducatidds is all ready to make the claim that the implant has not one ounce of research.It would be so helpful if it was possible to just design a medical device, bring it to the global market with no research or testing at all. All this at the risk of patients health, the good reputation of the company, current and future profits and the wrath of government regulators. Why would Nobel or any other company do this? It makes no sense from any perspective. If you do not believe in the product, or feel it is dangerous then simply do not buy it. Easy decision. There are posts here critical of Nobel's lack of research, the reality is there is not a more researched product line in the implant world. Everyone cites the NobelPerfect implant and the minor issue with the Swedish regulatory agency. The end result of that was some instructions in the procedure manual had to be re-worded. Simple. Nobel still sells it as they have for years. The product was not "pulled" from the market as posters here claim. The NobelPerfect implant has always been a niche, low volume implant for Nobel. Thats being the case, there is still significant research behind it, including: 1. Wöhrle PS. NobelPerfect™ esthetic scalloped implant: rationale for a new design. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5(suppl 1): 64-73. Abstract in PubMed 2 Wöhrle PS, Jovanovic SA. NobelPerfect™ – A biologic approach to predictable natural esthetics. Appl Osseointegration Res 2004; 4: 49-54. 3 Hanisch O, Dinkelacker W. The scalloped implant: a novel implant margin design mimicking the natural bone contour. Implantologie 2004; 12: 149-161.(German) 4 Leziy SS, Miller BA. Replacement of adjacent missing anterior teeth with scalloped implants: a case report. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005; 17: 331-8. Abstract in PubMed 5 Rocci A, Gottlow J. Esthetic outcome of immediately loaded scalloped implants placed in extraction sites using flapless surgery. A 6-month report of 4 cases. Appl Osseointegration Res 2004; 4: 55-62. 6 Mitrani R, Adolfi D, Tacher S. Adjacent implant-supported restorations in the esthetic zone: Understanding the biology. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005; 17: 211-23. Abstract in PubMed 7 Khatami AH, Al-Ajmi M, Kleinman A. Preservation of the gingival architecture with the scalloped implant design: A clinical report. J Oral Implantology 2006; 32: 167-170. Abstract in PubMed 8 Yildirim M, Liebe J, Paland A, Spiekermann H. The “scalloped” implant. Clinical experiences with regard to functional and esthetic aspects. Implantologie 2005; 13: 279-299. (German) 9 Nowzari H, Chee W, Yi K, Pak M, Ho Chung W, Rich S. Scalloped dental implants: A retrospective analysis of radiographic and clinical outcomes of 17 NobelPerfect™ implants in 6 patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 1-10. Abstract in PubMed 10 Wöhrle PS. Commentary on “Scalloped dental implants: A retrospective analysis of radiographic and clinical outcomes of 17 NobelPerfect™ implants in 6 patients”. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 55-59. 11 McAllister BS. Scalloped implant designs enhance interproximal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007; 27: 9-15. Abstract in PubMed 12 Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K, Lieddelow G, Henry P, Goodacre CJ. Peri-implant tissue response following immediate provisional restoration of scalloped implants in the esthetic zone: A one-year pilot prospective multi-center study. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97 (suppl) : 109-118. Not an insignificant amount of research for an implant line that represents less than 1% of Nobel Implant sales. All the naysayers and conspiracy theorists who post critical of Nobel should take an objective look at the research that Nobel has for all their products before making unsubstantiated claims. There is no history at all of Nobel bringing untested, unproven products to the market. It is not what they do. Could it be competitors who are spreading this disinformation? Who knows. If you don't feel comfortable placing this implant, then don't. Place one that you feel has more research behind it if that is what is important to you. Although there is a myriad of posters deriding Nobel's lack of research, no one has yet posted the implant companies whose research surpasses that of Nobel's. I would like to see that information with substantiation.

Dr. No should know that Nobel Direct is the best example of how Nobel has gone wrong. It is getting replaced by Nobel Active 1-piece. Replace Select too is getting replaced by Nobel Active. Being in the industry for more than 18 years and having been involved with big companies and big clinicians as also universities, I know the inside story in most cases. What I am writing are NOT assumptions but facts. As I like to say, everyone has a right to their opinion but no one has a right to be wrong in their facts. DDES should read my first post again in which I mentioned that Nobel "worked around" the patent of CamLog. Dr. Kirsch could do nothing. Where is the question of taking them to court as the lawyers advised Dr. Kirsch he had no case. Why could Nobel be not ethical to pay Dr. Kirsch the fees? I tried to get CamLog platform on other American implants, but neither Dr. Kirsch nor these companies were interested. These companies too could have gone ahead and copied the prosthetic design of CamLog, but they chose not to do such an unethical thing. CamLog writes in their logo "The Original" to ensure dentists know this was the Father of Replace Select connection. The worst thing I heard is ignorant Nobel sales persons mentioning that CamLog is a clone of Replace Select. As for why Universities accept the donations, the answer is obviously simple: who cares? But believe me, they will once the US Federal authorities get to know of this. Make no mistake, I am not a Nobel hater. On the contrary, I respect their innovativeness: the broad product line they have right now is unsurpassable. They definitely took the wind out of the competition by correctly predicting how implant companies should have, Procera and Implants. In my criticism, I am only objectively saying they should not make such grave errors just to increase their top-line and also to deprive other genuine researchers from credit. Nobel Direct to me was a bad implant. I told Dr. Mick Dragoo as also warned Nobel not to push it way back when it was first released. But they did not heed. The results are there to see.

If you claim Nobel Replace Select, the best selling implant in the world is being replaced by NobelActive, I can you tell you, you have no idea what you are talking about. Its not going to happen, not now, not ever. You continue to harp on the NobelPerfect. That this was an example of how Nobel "went wrong" illustrates your lack of understanding. This implant was one in a broad line up of products. If it wasn't the most successful selling implant so be it. It was innovative and unique, right from the start it was never marketed as a high volume implant. It represents a fraction of the sales of Nobel. Not every product that a company brings to market is a huge success. If you have never worked in product development or marketing you would understand this. Credit should be given to Nobel for having the insight and fortitude to bring new products to the market. So be it not every one of them is successful from a sales $ standpoint. It is hard to predict how a market will react to a new product. In your view is it better to stifle innovation than risk bringing out innovative products? Overall the product line is robust, and broad both on the restorative and surgical end. There are under performing products just as all companies have.

I completely agree to this healthy exchange of information and discussion amongst fellow dentists but what I fail to understand is that how a trader like Mr.Daruwala considers himself worthy of making such comments on such a forum.For all to know he a distributor for innova n simplant and has no interest nor information on the science behind implantology and softwares for surgery.

Drdent, I can hide behind a fictituous name like yours and Dr No and so many other GHOST writers and write pompous posts posing as a dentist, no one would be any wiser. How do I know all of you are dentists or just Nobel employees or even dentists who are paid by Nobel or other companies? I have 18 years experience in this business. I am known to be honest, straight and knowledgeable. I attend conferences, courses, seminars to gather knowledge and pass it on to dentists who need unbiased opinion (hard to believe that I can do it, but it is true). I also design and facilitate courses, conferences and educational programs. Dr No should see the recent judgement in germany against Nobel in the Materialise case to know that Nobel can do fraud.

Duruwalla for you to categorize the Nobel Biocare Materialise lawsuit in Germany as "fraud" on Nobel's part shows your ignorance. That case had NOTHING at all to do with fraud. It was a patent infringement issue that is now being appealed by Nobel. Infringement and fraud are two completely different issues. I tend to align myself with drdent, if Durawalla does in fact work for Innova then it is clear what his motivations are. Innova, isn't that the "press fit" blade type implant that was developed at the University of Toronto? Is that who this guys works for? Maybe someone can clarify this. He is not a clinician, nor does he seem to have a clear understanding of the implant business, or business in general. He does not have the ability to cite any sources, and everything he posts seems to be based not on fact, but on his opinion. Save yourself the embarrassment and either stop using your own name or better still just stop posting completely. You are portraying yourself as an ignoramus.

Dr. No please identify yourself first. I think you are ignorant calling Endopore a blade implant! Perhaps you are saving yourself embarassment by not citing your real name in the first place. From your posts, it is apparent you are paid by Nobel or are a Nobel employee. It makes no difference if I am not a clinician. Bringing truths out can be done by anyone. I do not work for Innova nor do I get paid by anyone to base my comments. If you can cite any instance that my comments are not true, then perhaps you can let me know. I have been as objective as possible including praise Nobel where it is due. For your information, not only company marketing but also clinicians indulge in a lot of marketing BS which most dentists do not know. Therefore, these forums are necessary for a healthy exchange of information. I would say that people like you who hide their real names and indulge in company propagande should not be allowed. In other words, only authentic email id with genuine names and addresses should be allowed to post remarks. Then it makes sense. Also please do NOT try to shut me up.

Dear colleagues: Probably all of you are right. Marketing is ok as far as will let you know specific product features or characteristics. It is not necessary false, but if you create a monster you need to feed it! Today Nobelbiocare is a monster (a multinational huge company) which unique interest is to earn as much money as they can and sometimes they do barely legal things to obtain such a result. They are also oblied to launch NEW products every year as the value of the company in the market is measured not only because implant sales but because how many NEW products they launch every year. NobelActive is a copy of SPI Alpha Bio implant. The owner of Alpha Bio is lecturing for NobelBiocare doing live surgery in big meetings, so the relationship is clear. The SPI implant has been in the market for years. Not even one NobelBiocare customer looked to this implant during these years and probably they will never do it in the future until the moment that Nobel bought it. This is for sure not the implant of the future and probably it will repeat the problems they have in the past with NobelDirect one piece implant. I also think that Nobel wants to move into a new privative internal connection as the trilobe is now copied and improved by other implant companies as ImplantDirect REPLANT/REPLUS double chamber trilobe. I can accept marketing and advertising but I will never let the marketing team of a certain company to tell me what should I do clinically! We need to share our knowledge without the intoxication of company marketing! God bless you all.

Excellent comments Dr Niznick. You should use your real name though.

Hi Drno. from your nickname it will be nice that my name were Niznick. As you will know there is a film called 007 against Dr No and Dr. No was the chief of a terrorist organization called SPECTRA and Dr. Niznick system is called .......how? SPECTRA SYSTEM!!! funny isn´t. Actually I work in Europe and beyond that I was a Nobelbiocare trainer (I have done this work for ten years by now). I am MD, DDS and Maxillofacial Surgery qualified specialist and I have been placing dental implants for 20 years. I will not say anything else as you will have soon an answer from Dr. Niznick who as far as I know never hide his name (mine are my initials). Thanks for saying that my comments were excellent (you were not ironic weren´t you?) God bless you.

By the way, Ruumi Daruwalla (I wonder where this name come from) is right. NobelBiocare people (customers and sellers) are characterized by their lack of knowledge in the implant world. They usually ignore all the other companies to the point that they are not able to compare his own product to any other. Innova porous surface is well known and has several clinical studies. They were the first in showing long term short implant survival when Nobel blamed their 3.75x8mm turned implants in the maxilla. Now they are together with Oraltronics you will find a similar design to the NobelActive implant in the Pitt Easy implant. You better read Esposito review (Cochrane library) to realize that there are no big differences between implant systems except in price! Well done Ruumi. P.P.

It is strange that people want to express their opinions on this blog but do not want to be identified. What are you scared of? I totally agree with the remarks of Dr. P. P. (what is the full name?) and will go a step further by saying that NBC now says pores are actually good on the implant justifying Endopore porous-surfaced implant design. That's how Nobel Groovy got its name. Maybe Endopore should recover some funds from NBC for using their research (a joke). The genesis of Nobel Active is NOT Alpha Bio, but the Pitt-Easy. Similar thread pattern. I heard Dr. Bichacho speak this year in Mumbai and I for one do not agree with his concept of making the coronal part of the implant smaller than the body. It does not make sense. Other than that, the implant looks ok. Ophir's surgery of Nobel Active placement showing changing direction of drilling as well as implant mid-way does not make engineering sense either as there is no sure way to determined where one should exactly change direction for every drill and then the implant. This sure makes the implant non-predictable for such a anterior maxillary site. I just saw on NBC website the new marketing BS. They are calling Nobel Active the 3rd Generation Implant. Who determines the generations? Also they say it works like a corkscrew. For the sake of Dr. No let us get scientific and objective. What is the dictionary meaning of corkscrew? It is "a device for drawing corks from bottles that has a pointed spiral piece of metal turned by a handle". Corkscrews do not require prior drilling and this is how it achieves it primary stability. This is not the case with Nobel Active. Secondly under scientific evidence, NBC website posts only 1 study of the founding group of Bichacho and others; and 2 ongoing trials. In other words, as Dr P P rightly said NBC is taking dentists for a ride, may I say NBC is "screwing dentists with a cork"? Dr. No also wrongly presumed it was Dr. Jerry Niznick who wrote the post of Dr. P P. I doubt Jerry ever uses words such as God bless you. He probably always says God screw NBC and all my competitors! Friends, have a great day. Be honest, it is the only thing that will sustain you on a wrong day.

Nobel Groovy got its name because it has pores on it? Wrong. It was named based on the micro grooves on the underside of the threads on the body of the implant. And from the microthreads, or "grooves" on the collar. Again this Ruumi poster has no understanding of the products he is trying bash. Nowhere does Nobel in any literature describes its Tiunite surface as having pores and "justifying" Endopores design. Nobel does not spend millions of dollars on development of a product to justify a design of another company. There is no business entity in existence that has a mission statement along those lines. Its obvious this Ruumi poster is anti-business and anti-marketing. I would suspect that based on that, he should not promote his consulting business. Everything is the world is marketing. From the car you drive to the soft drink in the cup holder of that car. Pharmaceuticals, OTC drugs, medical devices, everything. Ruumi makes the arrogant and stupid assumption that because Nobel is a successful company they must be doing something unethical. This is a common, but misguided theory of all liberal left wing people. Marketing allows a company to let people be exposed to products and services they may not otherwise know about. It is the responsibility of each individual to make a purchase decision based on their own beliefs and opinions. Marketing efforts do not render people unable to make intelligent decisions. Ruumi obviously has an ax to grind and it sounds like his lack of business suave is the basis for his disdain for successful companies such as Nobel.

totally agree with Ruumi on his post about people being afraid to express their opinion responsibly using their name.cant understand why someone hides behind a rediculous nickname to write his opinion out here.certainly lowers the quality of this otherwise excellent site.

Pores, grooves? What is the BIG difference? The only difference is now names are replying to my posts, which is better than Ghost writers? All however read a bit here and there and make ridiculous attempts to shut me up, which won't happen as I will speak up against any stupid marketing BS. JPCacciatore says I am against Nobel, then he should read carefully my emails praising Nobel. I have only objected to their marketing new products that have no scientific AND clinical basis. Nobel Direct is a case in point; and now Nobel Active. Is it wrong to point out that there are only 3 studies cited on Nobel website under Nobel Active out of which 1 was presented at the Nobel Circus in Las Vegas; and the other 2 are ON-GOING Clinical trials. Dr. JPC, are you willing to risk placing implants that are new in design (prosthetic platform and thread design) and claims a radically different surgical protocol (change of direction mid-way?) Who denies marketing is not important? But BS marketing never works long-term. Why don't I criticise Straumann, Astra, 3i, Zimmer and so on? Because they do not indulge in such grave BS marketing that is mis-leading. This point should be noted. All these companies are extremely careful of a 5-year clinical data before they release their products. Especially the European companies certainly are. Prof. Buser, Hammerle, and so many such stalwarts will never any product that has not been clinically validated. I certainly criticise Friadent and in the past have been proven many times when I criticised the Frialit-2 design in 1992 when it was launched. I had told the company then the anomalies of the design, which they subsequently had to change in several steps, till they discarded the design and jumped to XiVe. This post is all about sharing experiences and facts that help each other understand concepts well. I do not think I am on any mission to criticise unjustly any product or company. If you can point such a thing out, then I most certainly will be grateful. Thanks for your post, Dr. JPC.

The 'new' Nobelactive implant is definitely and absolutely a copy of an Alpha-Bio SFB implant invented by Ophir Fromovich. See their website alpha-bio.net if you need any more proof! I saw Dr. Fromovich introduce this implant to a London audience a few years ago. Quite candidly he told the audience that he was in the process of selling the design to a "Major Company" but that he would continue selling it via Alpha-Bio with some small changes.. I hope this clears this up! Matt Smith

Ruumi you do not know the difference between grooves and pores? Two completely different characteristics. Subtle differences are what distinguish one implant design from another. To make the obviously incorrect statement that pores and grooves are the same shows your lack of understanding of implant design. Look the two words up in the dictionary. You are critical of Nobel's marketing then I suggest that you do not purchase their products. By the way how may implants have you personally placed? How many implants have you restored? If the answer to both is zero, then your criticisms are somewhat irreverent. Dentists and oral surgeons are completely capable of deciding whether a surgical product has merit or not. All the "marketing" Nobel does falls within the legal guidelines established by the dozens of governmental agencies in the countries that Nobel promotes its products. Anyone who would base a purchase decision 100% on the marketing efforts of a company should be considered irresponsible. By the way, since Nobel's implants have a success rate of better than or comparable to the industry, what is it that you refer to as "grave" marketing? Nobel has been making predictable, successful products for over forty years. As far as your claim, that "especially the European implant companies do not engage in grave marketing." Do you think Nobel is an American company? I am sorry you are a wealth of dangerously incorrect information, Nobel Biocare is in fact a European company, being based in Sweden. Sweden is part of Europe. You are a huge proponent of the truth, please tell us how many implants you have placed, and what exactly is your clinical experience with Nobel implants? Since you have never placed or restored ANY brand of implant I would suggest you keep your irresponsible and inaccurate information to yourself, you are not contributing anything worthwhile to these boards.

The on-going diatribe is getting boring. The decision which implant system will be selected will be determined through literature review and what has given the practitioner the most predictable outcome. Many times what works well for one practitioner may not work for another. Consistent past experience will be the best teacher over a period of time. Let's get on with more professional discourse and forget providing Ruumi a platform to espouse his mumbo jumbo ideas.

Please unless any of you are working for one of this companies directly, don´t make this a personal discussion. From what Ruumi writes on his post I can realize that he has a deep knowledge of the implant world. He knows some things that you can only know if you have been working inside of one of this companies. I heard something about the Camlog issue in the past as Steri-Oss was on certain time the distributor of Endopore products which in fact were IMZ company products in the EEUU. If the discussion is about grooves or pores, the usage of grooves comes from a PhD work done by Patricia Miranda Burgos and you can find it in Google search. The point is that nowadays companies are launching products faster and faster and there is no time to test them before they launch them (Microsoft way of doing business). NobelActive is out in the market without any clinical studies. The one thy have talking about 5 year results is with the Alpha Bio Implant and not with the BIG IMPROVEMENTS they did in the original design (grooves and pores). The third change they actually did in the Nobelactive implant was increasing the price to the 290€ (430$) that this implant will cost in my country (this is the biggest improvement.........for them of course). I have to say that marketing is not a problem unless you think that what they are saying is an absolute truth for which you must give your live. P.I. Branemark was pure till the moment he started thinking that he was able to earn money with his creation. From that particular moment to the Company that NobeBiocare is today everything changed a lot to the point that PI is out of the company and the owners are not in Sweeden anymore but in Switzerland (a Dutch holding was the owner just a few years ago). The owners doesn´t now anything about implantology , medicine or patients health. They ask their employees to earn as much money as they can and to obtain a 20% increase in every year profits. So please, unless your children food and school money comes from one of this companies, please don´y believe anything they say wiyhout going through the filter of your knowledge and your clinical personal experience. God bless you all.

If Nobel charges $400 for an implant, which they don't, and a dentist charges $2000 to place an implant, that means the dentist is making more per implant than Nobel is. Why? Why should a dentist make so much money on an implant? Why doesn't the dentist lower their fee so patients do not have to pay so much? I think a dentist should only make $200 per implant. Ok, of course I am being sarcastic. The point is there is no law against making a profit. No matter if you are a dentist or a large multi national corporation. But most people on this site feel Nobel is an Enron like entity that makes way too much money. Hypocrites. You don't like a company, then don't buy their stock, and don't buy their products. End of story. Why go on and on about how bad Nobel is? Don't do business with them. The ironic thing is their sales continue to soar even with all the complainers on this board. Who is buying their over priced, un-reasearched low quality products? That to me is irony. Keep complaining.

Too much bashing going on here. It is sad that we do not hear stories of successes and great new products.

I completely agree with Drestes. Its high time we heard of some innovative surgeries or for that matter even some drastic failures. Guys enough of the TNA wrestling

Howardfeinstein is also right. As a dentist I have a certain fee for my work (ie an implant) and is my responsibility to do it as good as I can, to train myself and to use the best instruments, facilities and materials. But we don´t apply the cost of our materials as a rule to charge our work, don´t we?. If you are doing a root treatment, how much you charge? (think that guttapercha points and cement cost less than one dollar). The problem again is that this big companies are so aggresive it seems that you are not good if you don´t do flapless implants with immediate loading, guided surgery and same day teeth. Patients come to your office with an article from a local newspaper saying to you that your treatment plan is not good enough because you told them that they must wait three months to load her implants. So this marketing is not offering or showing new products to the dental community but trying to influence directly in the population of your country which at the end will influence directly in your treatment plan because otherwise you will loose the patient and he will go to another clinic that also announces all this features. By the way, I find several advantages in Nobelguide over Simplant. One can transform DICOM data into a 3D model by yourself, anchor pins are a great advantage and the surgical kit it is just perfect. The interface is nicer and 3D models are just beautiful. But nobody talk about contraindications of the system which briefly are lack of qeratinized gingiva and insufficient mouth opening. The systems works well in edentulous maxillas and interforaminal implants once you perform an incision to maintain the gingiva. Simplant has nice software and the possibility of planning immediate postextraction implants, calculating graft volumes and using several implant types from its library. But you still depend on a work station to obtain the TC data and fixation of the stent is not good. One of the best things I discovered recently is that I can use other implant brands with Nobeguide as 3i external hexed implants with the BS NG surgical kit or ImplantDirect REPLANT implants with the Replace NG surgical kit. I was not charging my patients more money when I was using a computerized surgical stent as I thought that the main advantage was for myself. Now using ImplantDirect REPLANT tapered implants I save enough money to pay the stent and the patient don´t need to pay more for a better surgical procedure. I think that this is good for everybody isn´t it? Talking and discussing about our work and its world is no more than a therapy and of course posting on a blog is cheaper than a Psychiatrist fee!!!!! Don´t you agree??? God bless you all.(Colleagues, and sales reps from all the implant brands)