Co-Axis® Implants
 

 

Threaded dental implant

with

angled prosthetic platform correction

Co-Axis®
Implants

Threaded dental implant with

angled prosthetic platform correction

Co-Axis®
Implants

Threaded dental implant with

angled prosthetic platform correction

The Co-Axis® Implant Solution

This innovative design from Southern Implants allows oral surgeons and other dental professionals to utilise existing bone while maintaining restorative platform at an angle that ensures an optimal aesthetic result.

Co-Axis® Enabled

Angled
prosthetic platform
correction

Decreases
Prosthetic Stack

Due to angle correction
within the implant,
decreases need
for angled abutments

Increased
Versatility

12°, 24°, 36° platform corrections allow optimal
use of available bone

Increased
Parallelism

Allows for simplified
restorations in
multi-implant cases

High Strength Titanium

Enables exceptional fatigue strength enabling Co-Axis® functionality

Decreased Retaining
Screw Fracture

Co-Axis® feature decreases stresses on retaining screw resulting in less prosthetic failures

Increase Patient Acceptance

Co-Axis® versatility leads to higher patient acceptance and less bone graft procedures

Reduced Need for
Bone Grafting

Saving costs
and increasing
patient acceptance

Co-Axis® Enabled

Angled prosthetic
platform correction

Decreases
Prosthetic Stack

Due to angle correction
within the implant, decreases need for angled abutments

Increased
Versatility

12°, 24°, 36° platform
corrections allow optimal
use of available bone

Increased
Parallelism

Allows for simplified restorations in multi-implant cases

High Strength Titanium

Enables exceptional fatigue strength enabling Co-Axis® functionality

Decreased Retaining
Screw Fracture

Co-Axis® feature decreases stresses on retaining screw resulting in less prosthetic failures

Increase Patient Acceptance

Co-Axis® versatility leads to higher patient acceptance and less bone graft procedures

Reduced Need for
Bone Grafting

Saving costs and increasing patient acceptance

Technical Facts
  • Available with connection interfaces External Hex, Tri-Nex, Internal Octagon, Deep Conical and M-Series (Internal Hex)
  • 12°, 24° or 36° platform correction angle, dependent on range and diameter
  • Tapered body
  • Diameters ranging from 3.25 – 6.00 mm
  • Lengths ranging from 8.5 – 18 mm
  • Surface roughened by alumina-blasting and chemically conditioned, giving a moderately rough surface with 15 years evidence of clinical success
  • Available fully surface roughened or with MSC (Machined Surface Coronal) hybrid surface (External Hex & Provata Internal Hex)
Surgical Benefits
  • Ideal for immediate placement after extraction
  • Reduced need for bone grafting
  • Increased patient acceptance
  • Increased parallelism in multi-implant cases
  • Ability to use standard surgical protocol and instrumentation
Prosthetic Benefits
  • Optimised orientation allows for simplified restoration
  • Predictable aesthetics, especially in the anterior
  • Allows for screw-retained restorations
  • Reduces laboratory and component costs
  • Allows for the use of standard prosthetic components
Videos and Animations
Southern Implants
Co-Axis® Implant
Co-Axis® Implant Key Features Co-Axis® Implant Key Feature: Prosthetic emergence
Co-Axis® Implant Key Feature: Screw Retained Restorations Co-Axis® Implant Key Feature: Increased parallelism and AP spread Co-Axis® Implant: Surgical Placement
References
  1. Ahuja S, Egbert N, Jain V, Cagna D. Managing maxillary proclination with novel designed angulated implants. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(2):203–6.
  2. Amato F, Cracknell T. Single-Tooth Immediate Placement and Provisionalization with Subcrestally Angulated Implants in Sites with Hard and Soft Tissue Facial Dehiscence in the Esthetic Zone: An Observational Study with 2 to 5 Years of Follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2022;42(5):e133–42.
  3. Botha PJ. A Novel Dental Implant Design Concept: Radiological Bone Level Presentation of the CoAxis Dental Implant after 1 Year, And 4 Years of Prosthodontic Loading. Adv Dent & Oral Health. 2017;6(2).
  4. Brown SDK, Payne AGT. Immediately restored single implants in the aesthetic zone of the maxilla using a novel design: 1-year report: Immediately restored single implants in the aesthetic zone. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2011;22(4):445–54.
  5. Butterworth CJ, Lancaster J, Shah HS. Elective dental extractions and osseointegrated implant replacement to facilitate transoral endoscopic ENT surgical procedures. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(12):1234–7.
  6. Chu SJ, Saito H, Östman PO, Levin BP, Reynolds MA, Tarnow DP. Immediate Tooth Replacement Therapy in Postextraction Sockets: A Comparative Prospective Study on the Effect of Variable Platform-Switched Subcrestal Angle Correction Implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020;40(4):509–17.
  7. Egbert N, Ahuja S, Selecman A, Wicks R. Angulated Implants for Fabrication of Implant Supported Fixed Partial Denture in the Maxilla. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci. 2017;18(4):304–13.
  8. Ferraris P, Nicoli G, Jensen OT. Chapter 18: Nazalus. In: The Sinus Bone Graft. 3rd ed. 2018.
  9. Ferraris P, Nicoli G, Nicoli F. Carico immediato di elementi singoli in siti postestrattivi in zona estetica utilizzando impianti a piattaforma protesica angolata. IMPLANTOLOGIA. 2015;4:97–104.
  10. Galve-Huertas A, Zilleruelo-Pozo MJ, García-González S, Ortíz-Puigpelat O, Hernández-Alfaro F, Aboul-Hosn Centenero S. Clinical Evidence on a Novel Macrohybrid Design Dental Implant with 12° Angled Platform: A Systematic Review. Materials. 2022;15(5011):1–14.
  11. Hotinski E, Dudley J. Abutment screw loosening in angulation-correcting implants: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(1):151–5.
  12. Howes DG. Angled Implant Design to Accommodate Screw-retained Implant-supported Prostheses. 38(7).
  13. Ibrahim CRM, Sameh A, Askar O. A finite element analysis study on different angle correction designs for inclined implants in All-On-Four protocol. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(331):1–14.
  14. Jennings-Lowe A, Valizadeh M, Rea A, Algarves Miranda L. Clinical Application of Angulated Prosthetic Platform Implants: A Retrospective Study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2024;0(0):1–22.
  15. Kurtzman GM, Dompkowski DF. Utilization of the Co-Axis Dental Implant to Avoid Sinus Augmentation: A Case Report. JIACD. 7(8):10–22.
  16. Kurtzman GM, Dompkowski DF, Mahler BA, Howes DG. Off-Axis Implant Placement for Anatomical Considerations Using the Co-Axis Implant. Inside Dentistry. 2008;
  17. Levin BP, Saito H, Reynolds MA, Chu SJ. Changes in Peri-implant Soft Tissue Thickness with Bone Grafting and Dermis Allograft. Part II: A Comparative Retrospective Case Series Using a Subcrestal Angle Correction Implant Design. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020;40(4):539–47.
  18. Ma S, Tawse‐Smith A, Brown SDK, Duncan W. Immediately restored single implants in the aesthetic zone of the maxilla using a novel design: 5‐year results from a prospective single‐arm clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2019;1–
  19. Mieleszko AJ, Saito H, Chu SJ. The Use of Dual or Co-Axis Macro Designed Implants to Enhance Screw-Retained Restorations in the Esthetic Zone. QDT. 2019;
  20. Montanari DM, Sassatelli C, Nadalini D. Rehabilitation of edentulous arches. industry. 2017;implants(4).
  21. Montanari M, Sassatelli C, Nadalini D. Innovazione chirurgico-protesica per la riabilitazione di arcate edentule: il protocollo Double FiRe Bridge associato a impianti Co-Axis. IMPLANTOLOGIA E IMPLANTOPROTESI. 2016;2:43–53.
  22. Nicoli G, Nicoli F, Piva S, Ferraris P. Impianti trans-sinusali a correzione sub crestale dell’angolazione per la riabilitazione del mascellare superiore atrofico. IMPLANTOLOGIA E IMPLANTOPROTESI. 2017;4.
  23. Nicoli G, Piva S, Ferraris P, Nicoli F, Jensen OT. Extra-Long Nasal Wall–Directed Dental Implants for Maxillary Complete Arch Immediate Function. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019;31(2):349–56.
  24. Offord D, Mathieson G, Kingsford N, Matthys C, Glibert M, De Bruyn H. Peri-implant health, clinical outcome and patient-centred outcomes of implant-supported overdentures in the mandible and the maxilla. BDJ Open. 2017;3(1):17017.
  25. Pellegrino G, Taraschi V, Zacchino A, Ferri A, Marchetti C. Dynamic navigation: a prospective clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(2):139–47.
  26. Tawse-Smith A, Ma S, Duncan W, Gray A, Reid M, Rich A. Implications of Wear at the Titanium-Zirconia Implant-Abutment Interface on the Health of Peri-implant Tissues. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(3):599–609.
  27. Van Weehaeghe M, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2017;19(6):989–
  28. Vandeweghe S, Cosyn J, Thevissen E, Van Den Berghe L, De Bruyn H. A 1‐Year Prospective Study on Co‐Axis® Implants Immediately Loaded with a Full Ceramic Crown. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2012;14(Suppl 1):e126-38.
  29. Wessels R, Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Christiaens V. A 5 to 7‐year case series on single angulated implants installed following papilla‐sparing flap elevation. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2021;1–
  30. Zaninovich M. Clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla using extended-length subcrestal angulated implants and modified trans-sinus nasal protocol: A case report. Int J Oral Implantol. 2020;13(3):291–8.
  31. Zaninovich M, Drago C. Immediate rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae using conventional and extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants: A retrospective analysis of 187 implants in 33 patients with up to three years of function. J Prosthodont. 2024;1–9.
  32. Chu, S.J., Saito, H., Östman, P.O., Levin, B.P., Reynolds, M.A. and Tarnow, D.P., 2020. Immediate tooth replacement therapy in postextraction sockets: A comparative prospective study on the effect of variable platform-switched subcrestal angle correction implants. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent40, pp.509-517.
  33. Levin, B.P., Saito, H., Reynolds, M.A. and Chu, S.J., 2020. Changes in peri-implant soft tissue thickness with bone grafting and dermis allograft. Part II: A comparative retrospective case series using a subcrestal angle correction implant design. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent40(4), pp.539-547.
  34. Zaninovich, M., 2020. Clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla using extended-length subcrestal angulated implants and modified trans-sinus nasal protocol: A case report. International Journal of Oral Implantology (Berlin, Germany)13(3), pp.291-298.
  35. Ma, S., Tawse‐Smith, A., Brown, S.D. and Duncan, W., 2019. Immediately restored single implants in the aesthetic zone of the maxilla using a novel design: 5‐year results from a prospective single‐arm clinical trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research21(2), pp.344-351.
  36. Duarte Jr, S., 2013. QDT. Quintessence of dental technology​. São Paulo: Quintessence Editora Ltda. (The Use of Dual or Co-Axis Macro Designed Implants to Enhance Screw-Retained Restorations in the Esthetic Zone – Mieleszko)
  37. Nicoli, G., Piva, S., Ferraris, P., Nicoli, F. and Jensen, O.T., 2019. Extra-long nasal wall–directed dental implants for maxillary complete arch immediate function: a pilot study. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics31(2), pp.349-356.
  38. Pellegrino, G., Taraschi, V., Andrea, Z., Ferri, A. and Marchetti, C., 2019. Dynamic navigation: A prospective clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement. Int. J. Comput. Dent, 22, pp.139-147.