In-House Workflow

Differentiate your practice

Meet increasing patient expectations

With the increasing patient expectations and awareness, it is vital to keep offering differentiated experiences. Engage patients by offering access to a unique digital restorative experience and tailored treatments solutions meeting all expectations as well as individual situations.

Nowadays, patients are more and more looking for comfortable treatment.

100% Of Patients prefer intraoral scanning because it's more comfortable and faster1.

61% From these patients think that it's more comfortable than conventional impression because it reduces:1

• Queasiness
• Breathing difficulty
• Teeth and Periodontal sensivity
• Discomfort during mouth was opened.

 

Dental practices offering intraoral scanner and CAD/CAM made restorations are growing and will continue to grow faster in the upcoming years2,3.

UNITED STATES

  • 1 in 4 dental practicies perform intraoral scanning2
  • 1 in 3,5 group practices use CAD/CAM milling systems2

EUROPE

  • 1 in 8 dental practicies perform intraoral scanning
  • 1 in 7 group practicies use CAD/CAM milling systems2

(1) YUZBASIOGLU, Emir et al. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC oral health, v. 14, n. 1, p. 10, 2014.
(2) Digital Dental Solution Market Assessment – Voice of the customer – US and EU comparison summary, December 2017. For In house and milling center. Digital Dental Solution Market Assessment – Voice of the customer – US and EU comparison summary, December 2017
(3) CAD/CAM Dental Systems - Global Pipeline Analysis, Competitive Landscape and Market Forecast to 2017

Provide unique patient experience by a complete access to the digital restorative workflow

Neodent libraries are available for the main CAD/CAM softwares

CARES Visual

Exocad

Dental Wings

3shape

 

START PRECISELY

Treatment planning using intraoral scanner allows saving time and providing an optimal patient comfort. Neodent scan bodies have been designed to precisely secure the restorative position within a user-friendly experience.

Neodent® IntraOral Scanbody

Neodent scan bodies are designed for an efficient and ease of digital impression use:

  • Auto-recognition using CARES visual*
  • Single patient use, sterile, peek-made
  • For implant and abutment level impression

3Shape Scanbody for Neodent

The 3Shape scan bodies make your implant position transfer and system- identification simple:

  • Auto-recognition using TRIOS*
  • Multiple use
  • Autoclavable titanium-made
  • For implant level impression

 

FINISH WITH EFFICIENCY

3D printing dental model allow having predictable and repeatable results that provide ideal fit in less time. Additionally, it allow printing complex geometries with accurate detail visualization. Access to the highest level of realism with the Neodent hybrid analog.

Hybrid Repositionable Analog

  • For printed or plaster model
  • Ant rotational with precise engaging positioning
  • For implant and abutment level impression

How it connects?

1. DATA ACQUISITION
DIGITAL IMPRESSION

  • Straumann CARES IntraOral Scanner
  • 3Shape TRIOS
  • Other IntraOral Scanner

2. PROSTHETIC DESIGN
CAD SOFTWARES

  • CARES Visual
  • 3Shape
  • Dental Wings
  • Exocad

3. MANUFACTURING
MILLING MACHINES

  • CARES C Series
  • CARES M Series
  • ZirkonZahn M4
  • Sirona Cerec MC XL
  • Any other Milling Machine

4. FINISHING
3D PRINTERS

  • CARES P Series 3D Printer
  • Other 3D Printers

Meet patient expectations by offering a comprehensive restorative treatment options

Mastering every step in every restorative workflow is essential for dental professionals. With Neodent deliver immediate natural-looking esthetic through a comprehensive restorative portfolio, covering all indications: from single to edentulous.

NEODENT TITANIUM BASES

  • For single-unit restoration
  • Several gingival heights (from 0.8 to 4.5 mm)
  • Several abutment diameters (3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 and 6.5 mm)
  • Allows crown customization and maximum angulation of 30°.

NEODENT TITANIUM BASES C

  • For single-unit restoration
  • For CEREC workflow
  • Several gingival heights (from 0.8 to 4.5 mm)
  • Allows crown customization and maximum angulation of 20°.

NEODENT TITANIUM BASES ANGLED SOLUTION

  • For single-unit restoration with angled screw channel
  • Several gingival heights (from 0.8 to 2.5 mm)
  • Several abutment diameters (4.0, 4.5 and 5.5 mm)
  • Allows maximum angulation of 25° depending on the gengival height and cementable area

NEODENT TITANIUM BASES FOR BRIDGES

  • For multi-unit restoration
  • Several gingival heights (from 0.8 to 4.5 mm)
  • Several abutment diameters (3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 mm)
  • Allows maximum divergence of 10° for ø3.5 and 16° for ø4.5 and ø5.5

One Step Hybrid Coping:

  • For multi-unit or edentulous restorations
  • For screw-retained bars and bridges
  • Provides a passive fit
  • Allows maximum divergence of 28°

NEODENT TITANIUM BLOCK

  • For single or multi-units restorations
  • For Medentika holder in two different diameters: 11.5 and 15.8 mm 
  • For Amann Girrbach holder in one diameter: 12 mm
  • Allows maximum angulation of 30°

Single-unit restoration

Multi-unit restoration

Downloads

Global Catalogue

References

• Large retrospective clinical study: 2,244 implants placed in more than 400 patients.(1)
• Long-term high survival rate: 99.7% after up to 5 years. (1)
• No early loss of implants was found in this study.(1)
• High predictability in full arch restorations (4 to 6 or more in the maxilla and 4 or 5 in the mandible) even with tilted implants.(1)

1. Sartori IAM, Latenek RT, Budel LA, Thomé G, Bernardes SR, Tiossi R. Retrospective analysis of 2,244 nimplants and the importance of follow-up in implantology. Journal of Research in Dentistry. 2014 Nov- Dez;2(6):555-564.
2. Martin C, Thomé G, Melo AC, Fontão FN. Peri-implant bone response following immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone and with immediate provisionalization-a case series study. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jun;19(2):157-63.
3. Barros RR, Novaes AB Jr, Muglia VA, Lezzi G, Piattelli A. Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on peri-implant bone remodeling of adjacent and immediately loaded Morse cone connection implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(4):371-8.
4. Castro DS, Araujo MA, Benfatti CA, Araujo Cdos R, Piattelli A, Perrotti V, et al. Comparative histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of marginal bone resorption around external hexagon and Morse cone implants: an experimental study in dogs. Implant Dent. 2014;23(3):270-6.
5. Novaes AB Jr, Barros RR, Muglia VA, Borges GJ. Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on papilla formation and crestal resorption: a clinical and radiographic study in dogs. J Oral Implantol. 2009;35(1):18-27.
6. Siqueira RAC. Avaliação do índice de sucesso e comportamento dos tecidos periimplantares de implantes cone morse equicrestais ou subcrestais em arcos inferiores. [master’s dissertation on internet]. [Curitiba(Brazil)]: ILAPEO; 2013. [cited 28 out 2015] 126p. Available from: http://www.ilapeo.com.br/ Monografias_e_Dissertacoes/Dissertacoes_turma2011/Rafael_Amorin_Cavalcanti_de_Siqueira.pdf
7. Sotto-Maior BS, Lima Cde A, Senna PM, Camargos Gde V, Del Bel Cury AA. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28.
8. Coppedê AR, Bersani E, Chiarello de Mattos MG, Rodrigues RCS, Sartori IAM, Ribeiro RF. Fracture  resistance of the implant-abutment connection in implants with internal hex and internal conical connections under oblique compressive loading: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2009 May-Jun;22(3):283-6.
9. Bernardes SR, da Gloria Chiarello de Mattos M, Hobkirk J, Ribeiro RF. Loss of preload in screwed implant joints as a function of time and tightening/untightening sequences. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jan-Feb;29(1):89-96.
10. Jorge JR, Barao VA, Delben JA, Assuncao WG. The role of implant/abutment system on torque maintenance of retention screws and vertical misfit of implant-supported crowns before and after mechanical cycling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Mar-Apr;28(2):415-22.
11. dos Anjos CM, Harari ND, Reis RSA, Vidigal Junior GM. Análise in vitro da infiltração bacteriana na interface de pilares protéticos e implantes cone-morse / In vitro analysis of bacterial leakage at the interface between Morse taper implant platform and prosthetic abutments. ImplantNews. 2011 8(2):239- 243.
12. Sartoretto SC, Alves AT, Resende RF, Calasans-Maia J, Granjeiro JM, Calasans-Maia MD. Early osseointegration driven by the surface chemistry and wettability of dental implants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015. May-Jun;23(3):279-87.
13. da Silveira BM. Análises tomográfica, microtomográfica e histológica entre enxertos em bloco autógeno e xenógeno nas reconstruções ósseas de maxila. [master’s dissertation on internet].[Curitiba(Brazil)]: ILAPEO; 2013. [cited 15 jun 2014] 133p. Available from: http://www.ilapeo.com.br/biblioteca-detalhe/ tomographic-microtomographic-and-histological-analysis-between-grafts-in-autogenous-andxenogeneic-- C162410.html
14. Mendonça G, Mendonça BD, Oliveira SL, Araujo AC. Efeitos da diferenciação de células-tronco mesenquimais humanas sobre superfícies de implantes hidrofílicas. ImplantNews. 2013 Nov-Dez 10(6a):111-116.