Unlock Mystery Offers - Calendar 2024 by Geistlich_Pharma

UNLOCK MYSTERY OFFERS WITH THE BRANDS YOU LOVE

2024 Geistlich Biomaterials Stoma Dental Instruments Meta Bone Scrapers Medipac Sutures Membrane Fixation System

New Year, New You! Do Not Compromise Quality! Not All Biomaterials Are the Same!

2024

JANUARY

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely! MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

EFP Perio Master Clinic Marina Bay Sands, Singapore

Australia Day

Geistlich prides itself on delivering you and your patients the highest quality and scientifically-supported regenerative biomaterials. We very much look forward to continue supporting your regenerative needs throughout the year ahead.

Home of Regenerative Dentistry

Geistlich Bio-Oss® Geistlich Bio-Oss Pen® Geistlich Bio-Oss® Collagen Geistlich Bio-Gide®+ Shape + Compressed Geistlich Fibro-Gide® Geistlich Mucograft® + Seal

www.geistlich.com.au

2024

FEBRUARY

Preserving the Alveolar Ridge with the Right Biomaterials Can Significantly Reduce the Need for GBR.

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SUN

Waitangi Day (NZ)

SAT

Lunar New Year

Valentines Day

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

Tooth Fairy Day

It’s the long-term clinical outcome that makes Geistlich Bio-Oss® Collagen and Geistlich Bio-Gide® EXACTLY LIKE NO OTHER Ronald J. Jung, Switzerland

Key Message

xtraction Socket Management

Extraction Socket Management

linical and radiographic stability of implants Management

Within the limitations of the present study, implants placed in

Key Message post-extraction sockets treated with ARP yielded stable clinic

and radiographic results after 10 years follow-up. laced in extraction sites treated with AlveolarKey Message Within the limitations of the present study, implants placed in Clinical and radiographic stability of implants radiographic stability of implants Clinical and radiographic stability of implants idge Preservation: 10 years follow-up Extraction Socket Management post-extraction sockets treated with ARP yielded stable clinical Key Message placed in extraction sites treated with Alveolar

Extraction Socket Management

Within the limitations of the present study, implants placed in

placed insites extraction sites treated with Alveolar traction treated with Alveolar Ridge Preservation: 10 years follow-up Clinical and radiographic stability of implants Ridge Preservation: 10 years follow-up rvation: yearssites follow-up placed in10 extraction treated with Alveolar Ridge Preservation: 10 years follow-up

post-extraction sockets treated with ARP yielded stable clinical

Study results and radiographic results after 10 years follow-up.

and radiographic results after 10 years follow-up.

Within the limitations of the present study, implants placed in

After 10 years follow-up:

post-extraction sockets treated with ARP yielded stable clinical

Study results and radiographic results after 10 years follow-up. •

No statistically significant differences were found in change of full

Study results mouth bleeding score (FMBS) (P<0.05)

After 10 years follow-up:

No statistically significant differences were found in change of full After 10 years follow-up: mouth bleeding score (P<0.05)increase of probing depth (PD) was observed at all sites • (FMBS) A significant

•

Study results

(P>0.05) with exception of the mesial aspects (P<0.05) 10 years follow-up: • AAfter significant increase of probing depth (PD) was observed at all sites • (P>0.05) No statistically differences with exceptionsignificant of the mesial aspects (P<0.05)were found in change of full • No statistically significant differences were found inbone changeloss of fullwas 1.1±0.1 mm and 1.0±0.1 mm • Radiographic marginal mouth bleeding score (FMBS) (P<0.05) mouth bleeding score (FMBS) (P<0.05) • Radiographic marginal bone loss was 1.1±0.1 mm and 1.0±0.1 mm at mesial and distal sites, respectively

Marginal bone (MBL) at baseline and 10 years follow-up Marginal bonelevel level change change (MBL) at baseline and after 10after years follow-up Outcome Outcome

MBL (mm) MBL (mm) Mesial

Mesial

MBL (mm) MBL (mm) Distal

Distal

Marginal bone level change (MBL) at baseline and after 10 years follow-up

Baseline

0.3±0.1

0.3±0.0

Mesial

Distal

0.3±0.1 Outcome MBL (mm) MBL (mm)0.3±0.0 levelBaseline change (MBL) at baseline and1.4±0.0 after 10 years follow-up 10 years follow-up 1.3±0.1

10 years follow-up Marginal bone loss

1.4±0.0 1.1±0.1 1.0±0.1 1.3±0.1 0.3±0.1 MBL (mm) 0.3±0.0

MBL (mm) Significance Marginal bone loss Mesial 10 years follow-up

0.003 1.1±0.1 Distal 1.4±0.0

0.003 1.3±0.1 1.0±0.1

Marginal bone loss Significance

1.1±0.1 0.003

1.0±0.1 0.003

0.003

Baseline

0.3±0.1 Int. 2023 Sep 19;0(0):0. 0.3±0.0 Iorio-Siciliano V, et al. Quintessence Epub ahead of print. Significance

1.4±0.0

1.3±0.1

io-Siciliano V, et al. Quintessence Int. 2023 Sep 19;0(0):0. Epub ahead of print.

Iorio-Siciliano V, et al. Quintessence Int. 2023 Sep 19;0(0):0. Epub ahead of print.

1.1±0.1

1.0±0.1

0.003

essence Int. 2023 Sep 19;0(0):0. Epub ahead of print.

at mesial and distal sites, respectively •• A A significant increase of probingof depth (PD) was observed at allwas sitesobserved at all sites significant increase probing depth (PD) (P>0.05) with exception of the mesial aspects (P<0.05)

(P>0.05) with exception of the mesial aspects (P<0.05)

Radiographic marginal bone loss was 1.1±0.1 mm and 1.0±0.1 mm mesial and distal sites, respectively • atRadiographic marginal bone loss was 1.1±0.1 mm and 1.0±0.1 mm

•

at mesial and distal sites, respectively

Retrospective clinical and radiographic study

10 years

Retrospective clinical and Evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants placed radiographic study

10 years

in alveolar sockets treated by means of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) after a 10 years follow-up. Retrospective clinical and 11 10 years radiographic study

Evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants placed in alveolar sockets treated by means of alveolar ridge

Evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants preservation (ARP) after placed a 10 years follow-up. in alveolar sockets treated by means of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) after a 10 years follow-up.

Retrospective clinical and radiographic study

10 years

Evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants placed in alveolar sockets treated by means of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) after a 10 years follow-up.

Dentistry is About Delivering the Highest Standard of Care. Are You Confident with Your Choice of Biomaterials?

2024

MARCH

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI 1

SAT

SUN

1st Day of Autumn

Dentist Day

NEW

SIDCON / ADX 2024 ICC, Sydney

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

Good Friday

Visit us at booth 782 at SIDCON/ADX to meet with two of our experts Dr Wendy Gill and Prof Axel Spahr.

Easter Sunday

myGuide® benefits at a glance This new learning journey covers all areas of regenerative dentistry and is structured in three patient types: Implant, Perio and Peri-implantitis. Ch prev eck out iew m odule

Customised

Patientfocused

Regeneration experts as teachers

Interactive

Hands-on included

Continuing education

Available packages

Complete learning journey consists of: • 56 learning modules • All learning modules include 5 Geistlich vLab® kits

Patient types

Indications

• Implant patient consists of 35 modules

•1 1 clinical indications Between 3–9 modules

• Perio patient consists of 16 modules • Peri-implantitis patient consists of 9 modules

The Invaluable Power of Predictability! Don’t Underestimate the Science.

2024

APRIL

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

1 Easter Monday 2

ANZAC DAY

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

‘GBR with Geistlich biomaterials is a successful therapy from an aesthetic and functional point of view with a high degree of predictability and low risk of aesthetic complications.’ Prof. D. Buser, Switzerland

HARVEST BONE THE GENTLER WAY! ® SS RO

C MI

R SC

T R®

NEW

ISE

®T

P RA

M LU VO T IS

HIGH QUALITY BONE SCRAPERS

For more information please contact your local Geistlich Product Specialist or call 1800 776 326.

‘Everything may work in the short-term – but not necessarily in the long-term.’ Dr. Mario Roccuzzo, Italy

2024

MAY

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

ITI World Symposium Singapore

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

SUN

Mother’s Day

What makes a biomaterial ‘premium’? We discussed with Dr. Mario Roccuzzo, Italy, about design, manufacturing standards, long-term outcomes and his journey of using biomaterials in the last 30 years.

Scan for Dr. Mario Roccuzzo interview

‘It’s not much different than the automobile industry: Cars are tested and introduced to the market after hundreds of tests, but once in the market, they may have a problem and must be recalled. We don’t want this to happen to our patients. This is why companies with premium products advertise that their products have been used for so many decades, in so many million patients and in so many clinical studies. This is the ultimate proof that a product works.’ Dr. Mario Roccuzzo, Italy

Maximise Long-term Treatment Success - Incorporate Geistlich Biomaterials in Major Bone Augmentations.

2024

JUNE

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely! MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT 1

SUN 2

1st Day of Winter

World Environment Day

Osteology Research Academy, London

King’s Birthday

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons – Annual Scientific Meeting, London

Choosing the Right Biomaterials Matters - Seek Solutions You Can Trust!

Key Message Key Message

or Bone MajorAugmentation BoneAugmentation Augmentation Major Bone

Yxoss CBR® Yxoss resulted CBR® in resulted high implant in highsurvival implantrate survival and rate and Major Bone Augmentation year 5-year results results of complex of complex bonebone augmentation augmentationKey mentation KeyMessage Message stabilisedstabilised augmented augmented marginal marginal bone after bone follow-up after follow-up of of Yxoss CBR® resulted in high Periodontitis implant survival rate andto seems minimum minimum 5 years. 5 years. Periodontitis seems play a major to play role a major ro Yxoss CBR® resulted in high implant survival rate and 5-year results of complex bone augmentation ocedures procedures with with Yxoss Yxoss CBR® CBR® show show high high stabilised augmented marginal bone after follow-up of ults of complex bone augmentation for long-term for long-term stability indicated stability indicated by BOP and by suppuration. BOP and suppuration Soft-Tissue Regeneration Key5Message stabilised marginal bone after follow-up of minimumaugmented years. Periodontitis seems to play a major role procedures with Yxoss high plant implant survival survival rate and rateCBR® stable and show stable bone bone Mucograft® resultedby in BOP stable peri-implant minimum 5 years. Periodontitis seems to play a major role for Geistlich long-term stability indicated and suppuration.

s with Yxoss CBR® show high Shorter surgery, better implant survival rate and aesthetics stable boneand stable tissue around implants rvival ratekeratinised and stable bone with Geistlich Mucograft®

superior aesthetics compared to the free gingival graft Study results • After 5.7 • After years5.7 theyears implant thesurvival implantrate survival was 97%, rate was with97%, one with o method. implant loss implant in theloss lower in the jawlower jaw

• After 5.7 years the implant survival rate was 97%, with one Study results implant loss in the lower jaw

•Study Marginal •results bone Marginal lossbone was mesial loss was 0.13 mesial ± 1.84 0.13 mm ± 1.84 and distal mm and dista

• Marginal bone±loss was mesial 0.13 ± 1.84 mm and • After 5.7−0.13 years the implant survival rate was 97%, with one 1.73 −0.13 mm, ± 1.73 with mm, higher with values higher indistal values periodontitis in periodontitis patients pati −0.13 ± 1.73 with higher values in periodontitis patients Five years after vestibuloplasty : implant loss inmm, the lower jaw

higher values higher marginal values marginal • The lower • The jawlower showed jawsignificant showed significant

• The lower jawand showed higher values marginal tissue • Sufficient stablesignificant width of peri-implant keratinised

bone levels bone mesial levels when mesial compared when compared to the and upper todistal the jawupper jaw • Marginal bone loss was mesial 0.13 ±upper 1.84 mm bone levels mesial when compared to the jaw with Geistlich Mucograft® −0.13 ± 1.73 mm, with higher values in periodontitis patients

• Smoking • shorter Smoking andwere gender and were gender not Geistlich were significantly not significantly associated associated with wi • Smoking and gender not significantly associated with • Significantly surgery time with Mucograft®

pre-op

Evaluated Criteria aluated Evaluated CriteriaCriteria Implant survival rate

plant survival Implantrate survival rate

Geistlich Mucograft®

5 years post-op

Results Surgery time

Keratinised tissue at 5 years

Average Marginal Bone Loss (MBL)

65.1 ± 15.4 rage Marginal Average Geistlich Bone Marginal LossBone (MBL) Loss (MBL) min Mucograft®

keratinised tissue as indicated well as shorter time,suppuration. and Study Study results results for long-term stability bysurgery BOP and

Marginal bone loss for patient with Free gingival 84.3 ± 14.2 periodontitis

Marginal lossgraft bone for patient loss forwith patient min with eginal bone

Marginal bone loss for patients without odontitis periodontitis Comparison 19 min saved

Mesial:

ResultsResults 97% Aesthetics

97%

0.13 ± 1.84 mm

bone level marginal marginal bone bone level vs free gingival graft level • Themarginal lower jaw showed significant higher values marginal bone levels mesial when compared to the upper jaw • Better aesthetics (color and texture match) with Geistlich Mucograft® vs free-gingival graft Yxoss CBR®

Yxosswere CBR® Yxoss • Smoking and gender not CBR® significantly associated with marginal bone level

6.15 ± 1.23 mm Texture and color Distal: −0.13 mm Mesial: Mesial: 0.13±±1.73 1.84 0.13 mm ± 1.84 mm difference not detected

Distal: −0.13 Distal: 1.73 −0.13 mm ± 1.73 mm Results Mesial: −1.57 ±±2.96 mm

8.40 ± 2.41 mm Distal:

Dissimilar to the

± 2.86 mm Mesial: −1.67 −1.57 Mesial: ± 2.96 −1.57 mm ± 2.96 mm adjacent tissue Mesial: 0.55 ± 1.17 mm Distal: −1.67 Distal: ± 2.86 −1.67 mm ± 2.86 mm Sufficient width of Recommended to

97%

Periodontitis Distal: 0.25 ± 1.10 mm time withwithout keratinised tissue consider one (MBL) Mesial: 0.13 ± 1.84 mm ±Geistlich ginalLoss bone Marginal lossbone for patients loss forwithout patients Mesial: Mesial: 0.55 1.17 0.55 mm ± 1.17 mm ® in aesthetic Geistlich Distal: Mucograft −0.13 ± 1.73 mm± 1.10 odontitis Periodontitis Distal: Distal: 0.25 0.25 mm ± 1.10 mm ®

Mucograft Hartmann A, et al., Clin Oral Impl Res. 2022;33:1171–1181. Read online

for patient with

areas

Mesial: −1.57 ± 2.96 mm Distal: −1.67 2.86 mm A, Hartmann et al., Clin A,Oral et al.,Impl Clin Res. Oral 2022;33:1171–1181. Impl Res. 2022;33:1171–1181. Read online Read±online

Yxoss CBR® prospective Single-center, clinical trial

5.7 years

Single-center, Single-center, prospectiveprospective21 21 5.7 years 5.7 yea clinicalsurvival trialclinical trial Evaluate implant in customised bone regeneration using

Comparative 48 5 years a patient -specificprospective titanium mesh clinical trial Evaluate implant Evaluate survival implant in customised survival in customised bone regeneration bone regeneration using u

a patient -specific a patient titanium -specific mesh titanium mesh

Evaluate if Geistlich Mucograft® and free gingival graft result in comparableprospective keratinised mucosa width, which Single-center, 21 is stable over long 5.7 years term clinical trial

Schmitt C, et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125 -e133.

for patients without

Mesial: Distal:

mpl Res. 2022;33:1171–1181. Read online

0.55 ± 1.17 mm 0.25 ± 1.10 mm

Evaluate implant survival in customised bone regeneration using a patient -specific titanium mesh

2024

JULY

Evidence-Based Products Integrate the Best Available Research with Clinical Expertise and Patient Values.

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

Christmas in July

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

Meeting international scientific standards is a core principle of Geistlich Biomaterials. Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Bio-Gide® regeneration materials are the most researched products in regenerative dentistry worldwide1,2* See back page

Trusted by Surgeons Worldwide

Distributed by

ABSORBABLE SUTURES MONOFAST

SYNTHETIC MONOFILAMENT SUTURES MADE FROM A COPOLYMER OF POLYGLYCOLIC ACID AND POLYCAPROLACTONE (PGCL).

NON-ABSORBABLE SUTURES PROFIMED PTFE

SYNTHETIC MONOFILAMENT SUTURES MADE FROM POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE (PTFE) POLYMER. For more details please contact our friendly customer service team on 1800 776 326 or your local Geistlich Product Specialist.

surgical sutures

2024

Have Confidence in Your Product Choices!

AUGUST

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

Dental Health Week 7 -13

Red Nose Day

Minor Bone Augmentation/ Soft Tissue

Hands-On WORKSHOP

Lecture

Brisbane

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

SUN

Webinar

Hands-On WORKSHOP

SAVE THE DATE Dr Rony Jung Pig-jaws

Mouth model Lecture

Sydney

Webinar

Pig-jaws

Hands-On WORKSHOP

Mouth model Lecture

Webinar

Pig-jaws

Mouth model

Melbourne

31 FATHERS DAY

‘Geistlich Bio-Oss® Collagen can effectively offset the bone resorption pattern that naturally occurs following tooth extraction, which as we know can hamper aesthetics and lead to soft tissue instability.’

Prof. Robert C. DaSilva, Brazil

With passion for perfection

Precise Dental Instruments made with Passion for Perfection. Prof. G. Zucchelli DDS, PhD Micro Surgery Kit Bologna Concept Zucchelli

Department of Periodontology University of Bologna

Perio Surgery Kit Bologna Concept Zucchelli

STO-19915.00

Plastic Aesthetic Surgery Kit Concept of Bern Sculean

INTRODUCTORY SURGERY KIT

STO-19915.01

Prof. Dr. A. Sculean, M.S. Department of Periodontology University of Bern

Sinus Kit Concept of Olsberg STO-19908.04

STO-19608.12

Scan for stoma® Scan for stoma® instrument specialised catalogue surgery kits

For more information on stoma® dental instruments and specialised surgery kits including stoma® Micro Screw Kit, Osteosynthesis Titanium Screw Kit and Introductory Surgery Kit please contact your local Geistlich Product Specialist or our customer service team on 1800 776 326.

2024

Maintaining Palatal Comfort - Go Palate Free!

SEPTEMBER

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN 1 Father’s Day

ANZAOMS RACDS Cairns Convention Centre

20 WORKSHOP

Lecture

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

Webinar

SAVE THE DATE Dr Mario Beretta Sydney AOS/ASP/APS Gold Coast Sheraton 27th Congress European Assoc. for Cranio Maxillo Facial Surgery, Rome, Italy

Major Bone Augmentation

21 Hands-On

Pig-jaws

Mouth model

‘Avoiding a second surgical site reduces patient morbidity, as well as my surgical time.’ Prof. Dr. Daniel Thoma, Switzerland

Regeneration Soft SoftTissue TissueRegeneration Regeneration

Evidence for softsubstitutes tissue substitutes as e for soft tissue as in clinical specific clinical situations ivealternative in specific situations

Key Message Key Message Soft tissue show comparable outcomes to to Softsubstitues tissue substitues show comparable outcomes connective tissueingraft in terms of bone connective tissue graft terms of bone level changes, - changes, - level peri-implant health and keratinised mucosa peri-implant health and keratinised mucosa

Study results

StudyAlthough results less effective than a connective tissue graft in soft tissue Although thickening, less effective connective tissue soft tissue soft than tissueasubstitutes may servegraft as aninalternative in

Connective Tissue Graft

e Tissue Graft

Soft Tissue Substitute

Soft Tissue Substitute Benefits of soft tissue thickening

specific clinicalsubstitutes situations such as;serve as an alternative in thickening, soft tissue may

specific clinical situations such as; • patient’s preference •

reducing surgical time and medication

•

single sites with minor deficiencies

•

limited availability of autogenous tissue

•

patient’s preference

•

reducing surgical time and medication

compensate loss of bone volume

•

single sites with minor deficiencies

prevent peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence

•

limited availability of autogenous tissue

Benefits of soft tissue thickening compensate loss of bone volume

increase soft tissue dimensions

prevent peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence improve aesthetics

increase soft tissueimprove dimensions emergence profile improve cleansability improve aesthetics

improve emergence profile improve cleansability

Valles C, et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Jun; 33 Suppl 23:72-99.

n Oral Implants Res. 2022 Jun; 33 Suppl 23:72-99.

Systematic review and meta-analysis

446

Efficasy of soft tissue thickening

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficasy of soft tissue thickening

446

<1 year and >1 year

Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Short-term Cost for a Long-term Gain!

2024

OCTOBER

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely!

MON

TUE 1

WED 2

THU 3

FRI 4

SAT

SUN

World Smile Day

EAO Congress, Milan, Italy

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

Halloween

With a low substitution rate and predictable osteoconductive activity, Geistlich Bio-Oss® effectively preserves grafted bone volume in the long-term.

Peri-implantitis Peri-implantitis

Key Message

Key Message Key Message Guided Bone Regeneration in peri-implantitis-related bone

Peri-implantitis

Clinical efficacy of Guided Bone Regeneration in

Guideddefects: Bone Regeneration in peri-implantitis-related bone and more Xenogenic bone substitutes lead to superior Clinical efficacy of Guided Bone Regeneration in Guided Bone Regeneration bone defects: Xenogenic bone substitutes leadintoperi-implantitis-related superior and more ficacy of Guided Bone Regeneration in predictable clinical outcomes compared to autogenous bone. peri-implantitis defects: A network meta-analysis predictable clinical outcomes compared to autogenous bone. defects: Xenogenic bone substitutes lead to superior and more peri-implantitis defects: A network meta-analysis Peri-implantitis Key Message predictable clinical outcomes compared to autogenous bone. Allo/Auto/ ntitis defects: A network meta-analysis Synth/Xeno Guided Bone Regeneration in peri-implantitis-related bone CGF/CM/M Clinical efficacy of Guided Bone Regeneration in Study results Study results defects: Xenogenic bone substitutes lead to superior and more Allo/Auto/ • GBR• treatment withclinical xenogenic vs. autogenous bone:toSuperior predictable outcomes compared autogenous bone. GBR treatment with xenogenic vs. autogenous bone: Superior Synth/Xeno peri-implantitis defects: A network meta-analysis CGF/CM/M outcomes for xenogenic bone in terms of terms resolution of clinicalclinical outcomes for xenogenic bone in of resolution of Allo/Auto/ Synth/Xeno

Allo/Auto/ Synth/Xeno

Author, year

Study design

Regidor al., 2023 Author,etyear

Randomised (Xeno+M): 19, no difference Study design 1 year Period TestGroups & no. of implants Outcome clinical trial Control (Xeno): 20

Regidor et al., 2023 Monje et al., 2022

Period

Groups & no. of implants

Randomised 1 year 1 year Test: Test Randomised 24 (Xeno+M): (Allo+CM), 19, clinical trial Control (Xeno): clinical trial Control (Allo): 24 20

CGF/CM/M

Study results

bleeding scores, probing pocket reduction, improved radiographic bleeding scores, probing pocket reduction, improved radiographic bone levels, and soft tissue height maintenance

CGF/CM/M

•

Outcome

Isler et al., 2018, Monje et al., 2022 2022 Author, year

Randomised 25 (Xeno+CGF), Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Bio-Gide® Randomised 3 years 1 year Test: Test: 24 (Allo+CM), Geistlich no difference Study design Period Groups & no.24 of implants Outcome clinical trial Control (Xeno+M): 26 has slightly better outcomes than with CGF clinical trial Control (Allo): Groups & no. of implants Outcome membrane et al., 2023 Randomised Randomised 3 years 1 year Test: Test25 (Xeno+M): 19, no difference Isler Regidor et al., 2018, (Xeno+CGF), Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Bio-Gide® Aghazadeh et al., Randomised 5 years Test (Xeno+M): 39, more predictable outcomes when using clinical Control (Xeno): 20 202220221 year clinical trialtrial Control (Xeno+M): has slightly outcomes than with CGF ndomised Test (Xeno+M): 19,Control no difference 2012, clinical trial (Auto+CM): 36 26 Geistlich Bio-Oss®better with Geistlich Bio-Gide® Monje et al., 2022 Control Randomised 120 year Test: 24 (Allo+CM), no difference membrane nical trial (Xeno): Roos-Jansakeret al., Prospective 5 years Test (Xeno+M): 29, use of M does not improve the outcome clinical trial Control (Allo): 24 Aghazadeh al., Randomised 5 years Control Test(Xeno): (Xeno+M): predictable outcomes when using 2007, 2011, 2014 case series 36 39, ndomised 1et year 24 (Allo+CM), no(Xeno+CGF), difference more et al., 2018, Test: Randomised Test: 25 Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Bio-Gide® 2012,Isler 2022 clinical trial 4 years3 years Control (Auto+CM): 36usingGeistlich Bio-Oss® with GeistlichBioBio-Gide® Schwarz et al., 2006, Prospective Test (Synth): Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich 2022 clinical trial Control9, (Xeno+M): 26 has slightly better outcomes than with CGF nical trial Control (Allo): 24 2008, 2009 series resulted in clinical improvements membrane Roos-Jansakeret al., case Prospective 5 years Control Test(Xeno+M): (Xeno+M):11 29, Gide®use of M does not improve the outcome

udy design

Period

2007, 2011, 2014

case series

Ramanauskaite A, et al. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Jul 25. Epub ahead of print.

ospective se series

4 years

Test (Synth): 9, Control (Xeno+M): 11

using Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich BioGide® resulted in clinical improvements

19-51 patients

12-60 months

Review included Assess the clinical efficacy studies with of GBR-supported reconstructive meta19-51 peri-implantitis12-60 surgicalNetwork measures in conjunction with surgical patients months therapyanalysis

Assessmetathe clinical efficacy19-51 of GBR-supported reconstructive Network 12-60 analysis patientswith surgical peri-implantitis months surgical measures in conjunction

therapy

to top to top

Assess the clinical efficacy of GBR-supported reconstructive surgical measures in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis therapy Network meta19-51

analysis

patients

12-60 months

Assess the clinical efficacy of GBR-supported reconstructive surgical measures in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis therapy

ecalcified matrix; Auto = autologous bone filler; CGF = concentrated growth factor membrane; CM = collagen llagen membrane; Synth = synthetic bone filler; Xeno = xenogenic bone filler

dontol 2000. 2023 Jul 25. Epub ahead of print.

Inflammation resolution: determined by reduction in bleeding on Inflammation resolution: determined by reduction in bleeding on probing and probing values, the GBRusing approaches using probing and probing depthdepth values, the GBR approaches Review included xenogenic bone showed superiority over the respective non-GBR xenogenic bone showed superiority over the respective non-GBR studies with treatments treatments Review included

Review included Network metastudies with analysis

Control (Xeno): 36

Allo = 5 allograft in decalcified matrix; Auto = autologoususe bone filler; = concentrated growth factor CM = collagen ospective years Test (Xeno+M): 29,Jul of MCGF not improve themembrane; outcome Ramanauskaite A, et embedded al. Periodontol 2000. 2023 25. Epub ahead ofdoes print. membrane; M = synthetic or collagen membrane; Synth = synthetic bone filler; Xeno = xenogenic bone filler se series Control (Xeno): 36

•

studies with

ndomised 3embedded years Test: 25 (Xeno+CGF), Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Bio-Gide® Allo = allograft matrix; Auto =5autologous bone (Xeno+M): filler; CGF = growth factor membrane; CM = collagen 2007, 2011, 2014 case series (Xeno): 36concentrated Aghazadeh et al.,in decalcified Randomised years Control Test 39, more predictable outcomes when using membrane; M = synthetic or collagen membrane; bone has filler; Xeno = xenogenic boneoutcomes filler nical trial Control (Xeno+M): 26Test slightly better than with CGF 2012, 2022 clinical trial Synth = synthetic Control (Auto+CM): 36 Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Bio-Gide® Schwarz et al., 2006, Prospective 4 years (Synth): 9, using Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Bioto membrane al.,caseProspective years Test ahead (Xeno+M): 29, use ofresulted M does not improve the outcometop 2008,Roos-Jansakeret 2009 series (Xeno+M): 11 Gide® in clinical improvements Ramanauskaite A, et al. Periodontol 2000. 20235Jul 25.Control Epub of print.

ndomised 5 years (Xeno+M): more outcomes when using Allo = allograft embedded inTest decalcified matrix; Auto39, = autologous bone filler;predictable CGF = concentrated growth factor membrane; CM = collagen Schwarz et al., 2006, Prospective 4 years Test (Synth): 9, using Geistlich Bio-Oss® with Geistlich Biomembrane; M = synthetic orControl collagen membrane; Synth = 36 synthetic bone filler; Xeno = xenogenicwith bone filler nical trial (Auto+CM): Geistlich Geistlich Bio-Gide® 2008, 2009 case series Control (Xeno+M):Bio-Oss® 11 Gide® resulted in clinical improvements

Study results

Inflammation resolution: determined by reduction in bleeding on outcomes for xenogenic bone inusing terms of resolution of clinical • Inflammation resolution: by reduction in bleeding on probing and probing depth values,determined the GBR approaches • GBR treatment with xenogenic vs. autogenous bone: Superior bleeding scores, probing pocket reduction, improved radiographic xenogenic boneand showed superiority over thethe respective non-GBR probing probing depth values, GBR approaches using outcomes for xenogenic bone in terms of resolution of clinical treatments bone levels, and softpocket tissue height maintenance xenogenic bone showed superiority overimproved the respective non-GBR bleeding scores, probing reduction, radiographic bone levels, and soft tissue height maintenance treatments

•

no difference no difference

bone levels, and soft height maintenance GBR treatment withtissue xenogenic vs. autogenous bone: Superior

•

to top

To Cross-link or Not to Cross-link? What’s the Better Barrier Way to Go?

2024

NOVEMBER

Ask Boldly, Shop Wisely! MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI 1

SAT

SUN

Movember

Remembrance Day

UNLOCK YOUR MYSTERY OFFER

Geistlich provides high quality, scientifically validated biomaterials that meet ever expanding clinical demands. With over 1,400 publications and 30 years of clinical success, the Geistlich biomaterials have a reputation built on long-term outcomes.*

-Tissue Regeneration Soft Tissue Regeneration

Soft-Tissue Regeneration eneration orter surgery, better aesthetics and Shorter surgery, better aesthetics and ble keratinised tissue around implants rgery, better aesthetics and and Shorter better stablesurgery, keratinised tissueaesthetics around implants h Geistlich Mucograft® Soft-Tissue Regeneration atinised tissue around implants stable keratinised tissue around implants with Geistlich Mucograft® surgery, better aesthetics and with Geistlich Mucograft® ich Shorter Mucograft®

Soft-Tissue Regeneration

stable keratinised tissue around implants with Geistlich Mucograft® pre-op

pre-op pre-op

-op

Geistlich Mucograft®

Surgery time

5 years post-op

Geistlich Mucograft® Keratinised

5 years post-op

Aesthetics

Geistlich tissue atMucograft® 5 years

5 years post-op

65.1 ± 15.4 6.15 ± 1.23 mm Texture and color Geistlich Geistlich Mucograft® 5 years post-op pre-opmin Geistlich Mucograft® difference 5 yearsnot post-op detected Mucograft® Free gingival graft

Comparison Geistlich Surgery Geistlich ® Mucograft time ®

Geistlich Mucograft

Mucograft®

Surgery 84.3 ± 14.2 Surgery time min

Keratinised Aesthetics Dissimilar to the Keratinised Aesthetics tissue at 5 yearsadjacent tissue

8.40 ± 2.41 mm

time Surgery

tissue at 5 years Keratinised

6.15 ± 1.23 mm Texture and color difference not detected areas difference not detected

FreeFree gingival 84.3 ±±14.2 8.40 ±2.41 2.41 mm color Dissimilar to the 65.1 ± 15.4 6.15 1.23 mm gingival 84.3 ± 14.2 8.40 ±Texture mm and Dissimilar to the Free gingival min 84.3 ± 14.2 8.40 ± 2.41 mm Dissimilar to the tissue graftgraft adjacent min min adjacent tissue min graft difference not detected adjacent tissue Comparison 19 min saved Sufficient width of Recommended to Comparison 19 min saved Sufficient width of Recommended Schmitt C,84.3 et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125 -e133. Comparison 19 min saved Sufficient width of Recommended to to ± 14.2 8.40 ± 2.41 mm Dissimilar to the time with keratinisedtissue tissue consider Geistlich timewith with keratinised consider Geistlich time keratinised tissuetissue consider Geistlich min adjacent ® Geistlich Mucograft in ®aesthetic ® in aesthetic Geistlich Mucograft in aesthetic Geistlich Mucograft Mucograft® areas Mucograft®®width of areas 19 min saved Mucograft Sufficient Recommended to areas time with keratinised tissue consider Geistlich Geistlich Mucograft® in aesthetic Schmitt C, et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125 -e133. Mucograft® areas t C, et al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125 -e133.

t al., Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125 -e133.

lants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125 -e133.

Key Message

Geistlich Mucograft® resulted in stable peri-implant

Geistlich Mucograft® resulted in stable peri-implant aesthetics compared to the free gingival graft keratinised tissue as wellsuperior as shorter surgery time, and Geistlich Mucograft® resulted in stable peri-implant

keratinised tissue as shorter superior aesthetics compared toas thewell free gingival graft surgery time, and method. method.

keratinised tissue as well as shorter surgery time, and

superior aesthetics compared toto the graft superior aesthetics compared thefree freegingival gingival graft

Key Message

method. resulted in stable peri-implant Geistlich Mucograft®Study Study results results

method.

keratinised tissue as well Five years after vestibuloplasty : as shorter surgery time, and Five years after vestibuloplasty : superior aesthetics compared to the free gingival graft • Sufficient and stable width of peri-implant keratinised tissue method. with Geistlich Mucograft® • Sufficient and stable width of peri-implant keratinised tis

Study results Study results

Five years after vestibuloplasty :

with Geistlich Mucograft® • Significantly shorter surgery time with Geistlich Mucograft® vs free gingival graft • Sufficient and stable width of peri-implant keratinised tissue

Study results

• Sufficient and stable of peri-implant keratinised tissueMucograf with Geistlich Mucograft® • Significantly shorter surgery time with Geistlich Five years after vestibuloplasty : width • Better aesthetics (color and texture match) with Geistlich with Geistlich Mucograft® vs free gingival graft Mucograft® vs free-gingival graft • Sufficient and stable width of peri-implant • Significantly shorter surgerykeratinised time withtissue Geistlich Mucograft® with Geistlich Mucograft® vs free gingival graft

• Significantly surgery time with Geistlich • shorter Better aesthetics (color and textureMucograft® match) with Geistlich

• Significantly shorterMucograft® surgery Mucograft® vs freeBetter gingival grafttime with vsGeistlich free-gingival graftwith Geistlich aesthetics (color and texture match) vs free•gingival graft

Mucograft® vs free-gingival graft

Better aesthetics (color texture match) with Geistlich •• Better aesthetics (color and textureand match) with Geistlich Mucograft® vs free-gingival graft Mucograft® vs free-gingival graft

Aesthetics

19 min width of mm Recommended to 65.1 ± saved 15.4 Sufficient 6.15 ± 1.23 Texture and color Keratinised time tissueAesthetics 5 years time with tissue Geistlichand color 65.1 ± 15.4 keratinised 6.15 ± at 1.23 mmconsider Texture min difference not detected ® tissue at 5 years Geistlich Mucograft in aesthetic

min65.1 ± 15.4 Mucograft min®

Key Message Geistlich Mucograft® resulted in stable peri-implant KeyKey Message Message keratinised tissue as well as shorter surgery time, and

Comparative prospective clinical trial

5 years

Evaluate if Geistlich Mucograft® and free gingival graft result in comparable keratinised mucosa width, which is stable over long term Comparative prospective 48 5 years Comparative prospective 48 Comparative prospective clinical trial clinical trial

clinical trial

548 years

5 years

Evaluate if Geistlich Mucograft® and free gingival graft result in Evaluate mucosa if Geistlich and free gingival graft result in comparable keratinised width,Mucograft® is stable over Evaluate ifwhich Geistlich Mucograft® and free gingival graft result Comparative prospective 48long 5 years comparable keratinised mucosa width, which is stable over long term

clinical trial

comparable keratinised mucosa width, which is stable over lo term Evaluate if Geistlich Mucograft® and free gingival graft result in comparable keratinised mucosa width, which is stable over long term term

Geistlich, a Family-owned Company with a Long-standing Tradition in Regeneration!

2024

DECEMBER

Geistlich, the Regeneration Experts MON 30

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN 1

New Year’s Eve

Christmas Eve

Christmas Day

Boxing Day

Wishing you a joyful Christmas and a New Year filled with safety and success from everyone at Geistlich ANZ!

Solutions for Complex Bone Augmentations Yxoss CBR®

Yxoss CBR® produced by ReOss®

For more details, please contact your local Geistlich Product Specialist or our customer service team on 1800 776 326.

Geistlich biomaterials Trusted by professionals for over 30 years, with scientific evidence resulting in long-term success. ‘The choice of biomaterials reflects on the dentist’s professional reputation. Using trusted and reliable materials enhances credibility and builds trust with patients, leading to positive word-of-mouth referrals and a thriving practice. Clinicians should approach the selection of biomaterials with diligence and care, considering the impact on patient health, treatment outcomes, and the overall success of their practice.’

*For references or more details on our products, please visit www.geistlich.com.au or contact our customer service team on 1800 776 326.

8277_01

Your Geistlich Team

We look forward to connecting with you in 2025 Stay tuned for more details

2025 JANUARY M T

W T 1 2 8 9

FEBRUARY

F S S 3 4 5 10 11 12

M T

W T

MARCH S 1

S 2

M T 31

W T

APRIL S 1

S 2

M T

W T

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

M T

W T 1 7 8

F 2 9

S S 3 4 10 11

M T 30

W T

S 1

M T 1

W T 2 3

F 4

S 5

S 6

M T

W T

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

M T 1 2

W T 3 4

F 5

S 6

S 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

M T

W T

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

M T

W T

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31