Neodent vs Straumann

Quick answer

Neodent and Straumann share an owner — the Straumann Group — but are positioned deliberately at opposite ends of the price range, and sharing a parent does not mean sharing components. A patient offered "a Straumann Group implant" at an unusually low price is usually being offered Neodent, which is a legitimate but different product.

Side by side

Rows appear only where at least one side has data. Where a value is not verified we say so rather than leaving it blank.

Attribute	Neodent	Straumann
Parent company	Straumann Holding AGVerified spec[1]	Straumann Holding AG, Basel, SwitzerlandVerified spec[1]
Country of origin	BrazilVerified spec[2][1]	SwitzerlandVerified spec[1]
Founded	Requires manual verification(Widely reported as 1993, but we have not confirmed this against a primary source)	Institut Straumann was founded in 1954 in Waldenburg, Switzerland; the business was refocused exclusively on dental implantology in 1990Verified spec[1]
Ownership	Wholly owned by the Straumann Group. Straumann acquired an initial 49% stake in 2012 and increased it to 100% in 2015Verified spec[2][1]	Not publicly verified
Manufacturer	Straumann GroupVerified spec[1]	Straumann Group (Straumann Holding AG)Verified spec[1]
Current status	Not publicly verified	Current — the group’s flagship implant brandVerified spec[1]

Parent company

Neodent

Straumann Holding AGVerified spec[1]

Straumann

Straumann Holding AG, Basel, SwitzerlandVerified spec[1]

Country of origin

Neodent

BrazilVerified spec[2][1]

Straumann

SwitzerlandVerified spec[1]

Founded

Neodent

Requires manual verification(Widely reported as 1993, but we have not confirmed this against a primary source)

Straumann

Institut Straumann was founded in 1954 in Waldenburg, Switzerland; the business was refocused exclusively on dental implantology in 1990Verified spec[1]

Ownership

Neodent

Wholly owned by the Straumann Group. Straumann acquired an initial 49% stake in 2012 and increased it to 100% in 2015Verified spec[2][1]

Straumann

Not publicly verified

Manufacturer

Neodent

Straumann GroupVerified spec[1]

Straumann

Straumann Group (Straumann Holding AG)Verified spec[1]

Current status

Neodent

Not publicly verified

Straumann

Current — the group’s flagship implant brandVerified spec[1]

The biggest differences

Straumann is the group's premium marque; Neodent is a Brazilian brand the group describes as its largest global challenger, intended to widen access at a lower price point. The Straumann Group acquired Neodent in stages — 49% in 2012, full ownership in 2015 — and positions it below the Straumann brand rather than as an equivalent. Both are real, current brands; they simply occupy different segments by design.

Prosthetic ecosystem

Common ownership does not make the components compatible. Neodent's Grand Morse is its own connection, so a Neodent implant is not restored with Straumann parts, and Straumann's CrossFit, TorcFit and synOcta systems are separate again. This is the single most useful thing to understand about the pairing: the group relationship is corporate, not technical.

Cost considerations

The price gap is the whole point of the two brands existing within one group — it lets the Straumann Group sell at both ends of the market. That a Neodent implant costs less than a Straumann one is a positioning decision, not a statement about how either performs once integrated. The risk to watch is a quote that trades on the Straumann name while actually supplying the value brand.

What may influence clinical selection

Patients offered a low-priced 'Straumann Group' option should ask for the brand and system to be named explicitly, because Neodent and Straumann are restored differently and serviced through different component ranges. Both are supportable in the UK, but a future dentist needs the specific connection, and the corporate parent will not supply it.

So which is better?

Neither is universally better, and any page telling you otherwise is selling something. These are different designs with different trade-offs, and the right choice depends on the bone available, the position in the mouth, the planned restoration, and what the treating clinician is equipped and experienced to place and to service years from now. That last point is easy to overlook and matters more than most specification differences: components need to remain obtainable for as long as the implant is in place.

Regulatory record

US FDA 510(k) clearances held by each side, retrieved from the FDA's own database.

Neodent

FDA 510(k) clearance

2014 – 2014

Filed by Neodent USA, Inc.

Straumann

FDA 510(k) clearances

2004 – 2026

Filed by Institut Straumann AG

A clearance count is not a quality ranking, and the larger number is not the better implant. A brand with more clearances usually has a longer history or a broader component range. FDA "clearance" also is not FDA "approval" — it means the device was accepted as substantially equivalent to one already on the market, generally without a clinical trial. A blank here means we could not match a filing with confidence, not that the brand lacks authorisation. What these actually mean →

Sources

Numbers match the citations beside each claim above.

Primary sources

[1]Straumann Group Annual Report 2025 — Straumann Holding AG, 2026. Accessed 2026-07-21.

Additional references

[2]Straumann increases ownership of Neodent to 100% — DentistryIQ, 2015. Accessed 2026-07-21.