Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Dental implants

Long-term survival of Astra Tech vs Straumann dental implants and restorations



This randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared the survival and complications rates between two well-established implant systems, namely AST (OsseoSpeed TX 3.0–5.0 S, TX 4.5; Astra Tech Implant System, Dentsply Sirona) and STM (Straumann Bone Level Implants 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 mm, SLA active; Straumann AG), supporting fixed restorations, over a 10-year follow-up period.

Case selection

Sixty-four healthy patients with good oral hygiene participated in this study at the Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Switzerland. A total of 98 implants were placed in these patients, who were randomly assigned to either the AST or the STM groups. Subsequently, patients received implant-supported fixed restorations and were followed up for 10 years. The assessments were performed at the implant insertion stage after the final implant restoration was fitted (baseline), and then at 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 years post-baseline assessment. The outcome measures included implant survival, marginal bone level changes, prosthesis (supra-structure) complications, and clinical periodontal measures.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed with SAS 9.4 software. Data were recorded at both the patient and implant levels. A range of statistical tests such as Wilcoxon-signed-rank, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney, F-tests, and Chi-squares were used. Linear models and linear mixed models were applied at the patient and implant levels, respectively.


The study reported survival rates of 89.7% for AST and 96.8% for STM, after 10 years. The AST implants showed a higher incidence of prosthesis complications, such as chipping, screw loosening and fracture, abutment fracture, and implant crown loss. Biological complications, including peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, were more prevalent in the STM group.


Overall, the study suggests that both implant systems have equally high survival rates and stable marginal bone levels. Therefore, both systems are considered viable options for supporting fixed restorations at restoring missing teeth in the maxilla and mandible.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, Weltman R. Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2017;62:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Diaz P, Gonzalo E, Villagra LJG, Miegimolle B, Suarez MJ. What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:449.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mojtaba Mehrabanian.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mehrabanian, M., Dorri, M. Long-term survival of Astra Tech vs Straumann dental implants and restorations. Evid Based Dent 25, 33–34 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links