NeoArch™

Offers immediate, reliable and top quality fixed
edentulous solutions based on the proven
product concepts at an affordable cost.

A smile for everyone. You and your patients.


Benefits

Surgical predictability and efficiency

One compact prosthetic kit

Guided surgery

Cost effective treatment for patients


NeoArch treatment solution components

A Simple solution requires minimal numbers of components

CM Drive

  • Recommended bone type: III & IV & extraction socket
  • Diameter (Ø): 3.5, 4.3, 5.0
  • Length (mm): 8.0, 10.0, 11.5, 13.0, 16.0, 18.0
  • Surface: NeoPoros and Acqua

CM Titamax EX

  • Recommended bone type: III & IV & for narrow bone width
  • Diameter (Ø): 3.5, 3.75, 4.0
  • Length (mm): 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0, 17.0
  • Surface: NeoPoros and Acqua

CM Zygomatic

  • Length (mm): 30, 35, 40, 45, 47.5, 50, 52.5

CM Mini Conical Abument

  • Angulation: straight, 17°& 30°
  • Gingiva heights (mm) – straight: 0.8, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5
  • Gingiva heights (mm) – angulated: 1.5, 2.5, 3.5

Distal bar coping

  • Available in Titanium
  • Retainers to ease joining with acrylic resin

 


17° / 30° Parallel Pins

  • Available in Titanium
  • Instrument to guide the implant’s position

Impression Coping

  • Available in Titanium
  • Available in open and closed tray

Polish Protector

  • Available in Mini conical copings
References

1. Sartori IAM, Latenek RT, Budel LA, Thomé G, Bernardes SR, Tiossi R. Retrospective analysis of 2,244 implants and the importance of follow-up in implantology. JRD (2014); 2(6):555-565

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. dos Anjos CM, Harari ND, Reis RSA, Vidigal Junior GM. Análise in vitro da infiltração bacteriana na interface de pilares protéticose 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Sotto-Maior BS, Lima Cde A, Senna PM, Camargo Gde V, Del Bel Cury AA. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages. Braz Oral Res 2014; 28(1):1-7.

10. Sotto-Maior BS, Lima Cde A, Senna PM, Camargo Gde V, Del Bel Cury AA. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages. Braz Oral Res 2014; 28(1):1-7.

11. Sotto-Maior BS, Lima Cde A, Senna PM, Camargo Gde V, Del Bel Cury AA. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages. Braz Oral Res 2014; 28(1):1-7