Skip to content

Start typing to search 200+ implant systems, brands, manufacturers and technologies.

↑ ↓ to navigate · ↵ to open

Straumann BLX vs Osstem TS III

Quick answer

Both are tapered bone-level implants that a UK patient is likely to be offered for treatment abroad, and both are current designs from large manufacturers. The visible difference is price positioning — Straumann sits in the premium segment and Osstem in the value one — but price is a market fact, not a measure of how either performs in bone.

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.

Manufacturer

Straumann BLX

Not publicly verified

Osstem TS III SA

Osstem Implant Co., Ltd.Manufacturer-reported[3][4]

Current status

Straumann BLX

Current. Straumann publishes a BLX Basic Information document revised November 2024.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

Not publicly verified

Implant level

Straumann BLX

Bone level. Straumann states that "the Straumann BLX Implant System offers Bone Level implants (BLX)".Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

Bone level — the catalogue describes TSIII SA as a submerged-type implantManufacturer-reported[3]

Body geometry

Straumann BLX

Fully tapered body with a machined neck whose height varies with implant length: 1.0 mm on 6 mm and 8 mm implants, 1.7 mm on 10–14 mm implants and 2.0 mm on 16–18 mm implants.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

Tapered body design, stated to give initial fixation at placementManufacturer-reported[3]

Material

Straumann BLX

Roxolid — Straumann’s titanium-zirconium alloy.Manufacturer-reported[1][2]

Osstem TS III SA

Titanium — the instructions for use state that the fixture is made mainly of titaniumManufacturer-reported[3]The instructions for use do not name a titanium grade for the fixture.

Surface

Straumann BLX

Offered with either the SLActive or the SLA surface.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

SA — sandblasted with alumina and acid-etchedManufacturer-reported[4][3]

Connection

Straumann BLX

TorcFit — a 7° conical prosthetic connection with a six-position torx-style anti-rotation feature. All BLX implants share the same internal geometry regardless of diameter, so one set of RB/WB prosthetic components fits the whole range.Manufacturer-reported[1]TorcFit is specific to BLX and TLX; it is not the CrossFit connection used by the Straumann Bone Level and Bone Level Tapered lines.

Osstem TS III SA

Internal hex with an 11-degree tapered connection; a mini connection is used on Ø3.0 and Ø3.5 fixtures and a regular connection on Ø4.0 and aboveManufacturer-reported[3]

Platform switching

Straumann BLX

Manufacturer documentation not located(The Basic Information gives a platform diameter of ∅ 2.9 mm against neck diameters of ∅ 3.4, 3.5 or 4.5 mm, but describes the prosthetic range as Regular Base and Wide Base rather than making a platform-switching claim.)

Osstem TS III SA

Osstem lists platform switching among the features of the TSIII SA fixtureManufacturer-reported[4]

Available diameters

Straumann BLX

Maximum outer diameter ∅ 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5 and 6.5 mm.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

Ø3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 and 7.0 mmManufacturer-reported[3]Read from the fixture ordering tables in the TS System catalogue.

Available lengths

Straumann BLX

6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 mm. 6 mm is not offered in ∅ 3.5 mm, and 18 mm is not offered in ∅ 5.5 mm or ∅ 6.5 mm.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

6, 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5 and 13 mm at Ø4.0 and above; Ø3.0 and Ø3.5 from 8.5 to 13 mm; Ø5.0 additionally in 4 mm and 5 mmManufacturer-reported[3]Availability varies by diameter; taken from the fixture product codes in the catalogue.

Immediate protocol

Straumann BLX

Not publicly verified

Osstem TS III SA

Recommended placement torque below 40 Ncm; the catalogue states the fixture acquires initial fixation for immediate loading in soft boneManufacturer-reported[3]

Short implant option

Straumann BLX

Not publicly verified

Osstem TS III SA

Extra-short options are offered; the instructions for use restrict implants shorter than 7 mm with a diameter of 5 mm or more to the molar region and advise splinting and a longer healing periodManufacturer-reported[3]

Narrow implant option

Straumann BLX

Straumann advises particular care when placing ∅ 3.5 mm Roxolid implants in the molar region or other high-load situations, because of the risk of implant overload.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

Not publicly verified

Geographic availability

Straumann BLX

Straumann states that not all products are available in all markets.Manufacturer-reported[1]

Osstem TS III SA

Requires manual verification(Regulatory clearance and distribution vary by market.)

The biggest differences

BLX is a fully tapered implant in Roxolid, a titanium-zirconium alloy, using the TorcFit conical connection and offered with the SLActive or SLA surface. TS III is a submerged tapered fixture in titanium with a sandblasted and acid-etched SA surface and an internal hex within an 11 degree taper. Both pursue high primary stability for immediate protocols; they are built to the same brief by two companies at different points in the market.

Design

The ranges are comparably wide. BLX runs 3.5 to 6.5 mm and 6 to 18 mm; TS III runs 3.0 to 7.0 mm and includes 4 mm and 5 mm ultra-short fixtures at 5.0 mm diameter, which BLX does not match at the short end. Both share one internal geometry or connection family across their range, so a single component set covers each. Both manufacturers attach cautions to their extreme sizes — Straumann to the 3.5 mm narrow implant in molars, Osstem to sub-7 mm implants at 5 mm diameter or more.

Material and surface

The stated materials differ. Straumann uses Roxolid, an alloy it markets for allowing stronger and therefore narrower implants; Osstem's instructions for use state that the TS III fixture is made mainly of titanium. Neither statement makes one implant better — they describe different engineering choices, and the alloy question is one of mechanical properties rather than of clinical rank. Roxolid should not be confused with zirconia ceramic, a confusion the word zirconium invites.

Geographic availability and serviceability

Osstem states its implants are sold through subsidiaries across more than 90 countries, and by unit volume Osstem is among the most widely placed implants in the world — a reasonable proxy for parts being obtainable, though not evidence about outcomes. Straumann states plainly that not all products are available in all markets. For a UK patient treated abroad, the practical question with either is whether a local dentist can obtain the matching components later, which turns on the connection, and both are mainstream enough that this is usually achievable.

Cost considerations

Straumann is positioned in the premium implant segment and Osstem in the value one, and that difference is real and will show in a quote. It is not, on its own, a reason to choose one over the other in either direction: a cheaper implant that suits the site is not a compromise, and a more expensive one is not automatically more durable. What the price does not tell you is the outcome, which is a question for clinical evidence rather than for a price list.

What may influence clinical selection

The deciding factors are the ones a website cannot settle: the bone available, the position in the mouth, the restoration planned, and crucially whether the treating clinician is experienced with the specific system and whether its components can be serviced where the patient lives. A surgeon fluent in one system will generally get a better result with it than with a nominally more expensive system they use rarely.

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. Clearances are held at brand level, so every system from the same brand shares this record.

Straumann BLX

via Straumann

30

FDA 510(k) clearances

2004 – 2026

Filed by Institut Straumann AG

Osstem TS III SA

via Osstem

5

FDA 510(k) clearances

2016 – 2023

Filed by Osstem Implant Co., Ltd.

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

Before you continue

Get a free implant assessment

You are about to start a WhatsApp conversation with Taki Dent, Dental Implants Guide’s disclosed clinical partner in Antalya, Turkey.

Taki Dent is Dental Implants Guide’s disclosed clinical partner in Antalya, Turkey. We may receive a commercial benefit when patients choose treatment with Taki Dent through this website. Your message and phone number are shared with Taki Dent so that they can reply to you. This is a preliminary assessment with no obligation — it is not a diagnosis, and individual suitability always depends on clinical examination. See our privacy policy.