Nobel Active vs. Nobel Conical Connection?

Wanted to see if anybody has a preference for Nobel Active or Nobel Conical Connection (CC), and what is the reasoning for choosing one vs the other?

I have never placed a CC implant and use the Nobel Active in conjunction with Astra EV . However, I was wondering if CC would be a better implant instead of Active? Thanks for any suggestions.



10 thoughts on: Nobel Active vs. Nobel Conical Connection?

  1. sb oms says:

    The Nobel Active implant is a conical connection-
    I think you are confusing your terms.
    Talk to your Nobel Rep.

  2. Phil says:

    I don’t think the questioner is confusing anything. Nobel advertises a Nobel Active system, Nobel Parralel Conical Connection, and Nobel Replace Conical Connection and a few other systems. Presumably the question pertained to the last two mentioned CC systems vs the Nobel Active. Obviously they are different or Nobel wouldn’t advertise them as different systems, unless Nobel itself is currently confused.

  3. Sb oms says:

    The active implant has the conical connection.
    The parallel conical implant has the conical connection.
    The Nobel replace conical implant has the conical connection.
    It’s all the same connection. The active, replace, or parallel just describes the shape of the implant.
    The terminology is horrible – agree.
    Talk to your rep.

    • Phil says:

      Yes, but the question is not about conical connections in general or the terminology Nobel chose. All these implants have a conical connection. So let’s just drop the conical connection text. Call the implants by a different name, if you want. The question remains, why prefer Nobel active over one of these implants or vice versa? Or do you too only use Nobel active?

  4. Sb oms says:

    Active is a great implant in extraction sites. Very aggressive thread profile.
    Also great in soft bone.
    Parallel is good in dense bone, or reduced spaces where aggressive threads or tapered implant could contact other roots.
    The replace is just a tapered implant.
    The poster should talk to his Nobel rep, that’s what they are there for.

  5. CRS says:

    I usually have to take an Advil when ordering from the Nobel catalogue. From a restorative perspective they all have the conical connection but I believe the other implants originally had the trilobe connection, the active originally had the conical. The trilobe has weak points and “flowering” was a problem. From a surgical perspective the thread patterns differ and the active can be torqued higher. I think the sizes differ so that is a consideration when looking at available bone and adjacent roots. The nice thing is that all the connections and abutments are almost compatable? I always double check my order with the rep very confusing. Also the way the components are labeled gives me a headache. I use the active in narrower spaces or when I need the Implant to grab the bone especially in an extraction site, hope this helps. I just wish they would include the healing screw with the implant.

  6. mwjohnson dds, ms says:

    as stated above, all conical connection implants including the nobelactive use the same connection and same abutments. Only have to worry about the np or rp or wp designations (implant diameters i.e. narrow platform, regular platform and wide platform)

    The active implant has very aggresive threads. I’m not a huge fan of them unless I need high initial insertion torque (immediate load of edentulous jaw). I like the design of the platform switch on the parallel sided cc best for bone retention. If you’re not loading an implant immediately then initial stability and high torque values aren’t that big a deal. I’ve had implants with almost no initial torque integrate just fine. Use an implant that is best for the situation. I use a platform switched implant for sites where bone loss will hurt the esthetics (Astra, Ankylos, Straumann bone level, Nobel parallel cc etc.) like the anterior maxilla. These systems work perfectly fine in the immediate extraction sites too.

  7. RodgerU says:

    I have used Nobel Replace Conical implants since they were introduced. The Nobel Active were available, but the drilling protocol and instruments for the Replace Conicals are very close to those of the Replace Tapered Groovy implants…less cost to convert to a conical connection in my case. The advantage of Replace Conicals are the larger sizes have prosthetic platform shift and better bacterial cleanliness inherent in a conical connection. The Actives have an aggressive groove pattern for better primary stability in type III and IV bone. However, the drilling protocol is unique.
    I can see the advantage of the Active platform in the anterior immediate placement cases.

    -RodgerU

    • Michael Igor Shnayder says:

      Thank you guys for all your replies.
      I usually use the recommended sequence on the Nobel surgical kit for the drilling.
      Using the taps in super dense bone.
      The rep says I would only need to purchase a different tap to place conical implants
      and still use the same drills. Is that true? How about the sequence of drilling?

      I only use 2 systems in the office Astra and Nobel. Not sure what everyone feels is the best one out there in their region.

      Thanks for a good discussion.

      • RodgerU says:

        The Conical Connection uses a different implant driver than the Nobel Replace Tapered Groovy. All of the prosthetic parts are different. Talk to your Nobel Rep.

Comments are closed.

Posted in Clinical Questions, Dental Implant Systems.
Bookmark Nobel Active vs. Nobel Conical Connection?