Surface of implant Bio3 is in accordance with the highest standards in implantology, which increases the survival rate of dental implants and accelerates the process. Particular features of implant’s surface influence both on its durability and survival rate.

Restoration of the dentition with the implants is not a phenomenon. The most valuable factors for operations are the accurate and professional work of a dental practitioners and the quality of the implemented materials. Having inserted some Bio3 Implants Bio3 Progressive in mandible, an implant surgeon Yuri Bondar presents you the photo case of such a clinical case.

A patient came to the dental clinic seeking for dental help. She had full-bridge restoration on the upper jaw and was unsatisfied with it. A dentist Hatice Şeker (Turkey) made dental treatment plan that included placement of five Bio3 implants. He placed two implants to the right side of the jaw and three implants to the left side. Then the dentist put some bone graft and sutured the wound.

Despite the entanglement of the operation, every implant surgeon eventually seems to face the demand of bone building through the method of sinus lifting. This technology requires a good preparation and the professional competence of the dentist.

The main quality criteria of tooth implants Bio3 are their durability and good survival rate, which guarantees their long-term osteo-integration. Durability of the implant greatly depends on peculiarities of its design.

Recently, Dr. Joseph Choukroun developed a new technological process for using platelet-rich fibrin, PRF-membranes, in medicine, especially in dentistry. The sphere of using these membranes is quite varied. Fibrin is used for Sinus lifting, Soft and bone tissue transplantation, Rapid

Nowadays dental implantation becomes the best way to restore missing teeth. Moreover, this way does not deteriorate the condition of the oral cavity and has unlimited lifetime. However, the implantologist should be very responsible during the all process of implant

Patient K., 35, complained of absence of incisive tooth and insufficient aesthetical criteria of dental bridge that substituted the lost tooth. The tooth had been lost resulting from trauma more than 5 years ago, for which reason the patient was