Fastest
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/dental-implant-surface-treatment-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Dental TechnologyDental Implant Surface Treatment Patents: Who Holds the Surface Claims
- Concentrated at the top. the five most active filers account for 98 of 197 records in scope (49.7%), with the leader alone holding 27.
- Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak. activity ran from 25 records in 2019 down to 3 in 2024, an -82% swing between 2021 and 2024 for the field's most recent complete years.
- Sterilising and disinfecting claims run almost as deep as dentistry claims. A61L appears on 47.7% of records, second only to A61C at 70.1%, showing how tightly surface treatment is tied to antibacterial function.
197
Published Records
50%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-82%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (17 records) with 2024 (3) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 197 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Dental implant surface treatment sits at the intersection of materials science and clinical outcomes: how a titanium surface is roughened, oxidised or coated determines how quickly bone bonds to it. The 197 records in scope span sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces, hydrophilicity treatments, titanium oxide layers engineered for early loading, and coatings intended to resist bacterial adhesion. Filing runs from 2015 through the current data cut-off of 2026-07-31, though publication lag means the most recent one to two years understate real filing activity.
The dataset draws on TACD searches combining implant-surface terminology with the specific technical levers used to alter osseointegration behaviour, so it captures both the foundational surface-preparation patents and the newer biological-coating approaches layered on top of them.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015 to present
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 197 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A 2019 peak followed by a real pullback
Filings rose to a peak of 25 records in 2019, then declined; by the last complete comparison window, 2021's 17 records had fallen to 3 in 2024, an -82% drop. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures will fill in over time and should not yet be read as confirmation of a continued decline.
Dentistry claims dominate, but sterilising classes are close behind
A61C (dentistry and oral hygiene) appears on 70.1% of the 197 records, and A61L (sterilising and disinfecting) on 47.7% — evidence that surface treatment claims are frequently drafted together with antibacterial or sterilisation function rather than roughness alone. A61F (implants and prostheses, 18.3%) and A61K (medicinal preparations, 14.2%) form a secondary tier; C23C coating and deposition claims, at 4.6%, are comparatively rare given how central coating technique is to the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 197 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Dental Implant Surface Treatment with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dental implant surface treatment and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
The most-cited prior art in this space
Representative filing
Dental Implant Coated with Recombinant Bone Morphogenic Protein and Coating Method Thereof
COWELLMEDI CO., LTD
The filing describes a dental implant with recombinant bone morphogenic protein (BMP-2) coated onto a processed surface — ceramic balls, calcium triphosphate sheet structures, or anodic-oxidation pores — to accelerate osteoblast differentiation around the implant site and shorten healing time.Filed by Cowellmedi Co., Ltd, published 2009-06-18.
Most-cited records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2004008983A1 | An implant and a method for treating an implant surface | 92 |
| 2 | US20060154206A1 | Implant and a method for treating an implant surface | 79 |
| 3 | WO2004008984A1 | An implant and a method for treating an implant surface | 56 |
| 4 | US5947735A | Surface roughening of self-tapping dental implants | 48 |
| 5 | CN101292907A | 一种牙种植体生物活性表面的构建方法 | 28 |
| 6 | US20050234558A1 | Implant and a method for treating an implant surface | 24 |
| 7 | US20100131062A1 | Methods and systems of controlled coating of nanoparticles onto micro-rough implant surfaces and associated i… | 20 |
| 8 | US5829978A | Surface roughening of self-tapping dental implants | 20 |
| 9 | CN105854080A | 一种氧化锆牙种植体表面处理方法 | 19 |
| 10 | WO2015145450A1 | Renewable dental implant | 19 |
Citation counts are measured within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on later drafting, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting or licensing in this space.
Concentration
49.7% of 197 records
held by the top 5 assignees
The core surface-preparation claims are locked up
With the leading assignee alone holding 27 records and the top five holding 98 of 197 in scope, foundational sandblasted/acid-etched and oxide-layer claims are well covered. New entrants filing on basic roughening technique alone are filing into dense prior art.
Top 5 = 49.7% of all 197 records
Momentum
-82%
2021 (17) to 2024 (3)
Activity has genuinely pulled back from its peak
After peaking at 25 records in 2019, filings dropped sharply through the last complete comparison window. That decline is real for 2021-2024; treat 2025-2026 counts as still filling in rather than as confirmation of further slowdown.
Peak year: 2019 at 25 records
Composition
47.7% of 197 records
carry A61L (sterilising/disinfecting)
Surface treatment claims are drafted with antibacterial function
Nearly half of all records combine surface-treatment claims with sterilising or disinfecting classification, alongside dentistry claims present on 70.1% of records. Filing purely on mechanical roughness without an antibacterial or biological angle is now the less common approach.
A61C 70.1% · A61L 47.7%
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dental implant surface treatment, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois | TORRES YADIR | 3 |
| Promimic AB | KJELLIN PER | 2 |
| Promimic AB | CURRIE FREDRIK | 2 |
| Promimic AB | ANDERSSON MARTIN | 2 |
| Straumann Holding AG | WOHLFAHRT JOHAN CASPAR | 1 |
| Straumann Holding AG | LYNGSTADAAS S PETTER | 1 |
| Straumann Holding AG | HERZOG ROLAND | 1 |
| Straumann Holding AG | FEHR DANIEL | 1 |
Only 9 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, the strongest linking an academic institution to a named inventor and a materials-science company to two of its scientists — evidence that most surface-treatment IP here is filed by single corporate entities rather than through joint ventures.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Who's filing
Players and where the field is still open
The ranking covers 100 companies counted across all 197 records — the full set the data endpoint returns, not a curated top list.
Leader
27 records
single largest filer
One implant maker sets the pace
The leading assignee's 27 records give it the largest single share of the field, well ahead of the fifth-place filer's 12. That gap suggests the leader has built a genuine portfolio moat around its surface-preparation process rather than a single flagship patent.
Leader 27 · 5th place 12 · 10th place 5
Momentum
0 in latest year
across several leading assignees
Recent-year filing has gone quiet even among leaders
Several of the most active historical filers, including established implant and materials companies, show zero filings in the latest year tracked. Given publication lag, this may reflect filings still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine stop.
Recent-year momentum: 0 YoY for multiple top filers
Receiving offices
United States 42
largest single office, of six tracked
Filing is spread across US, EPO and PCT routes
The United States (42) and EPO (37) lead receiving offices, with WIPO/PCT (24) and India (20) also carrying meaningful volume. That spread indicates most serious filers are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than treating this as a single-market technology.
US 42 · EPO 37 · PCT 24 · India 20
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nobel Biocare Services AG | 0 | -100% |
| Astra Tech AB | 0 | — |
| Straumann Holding AG | 0 | — |
| Implant B | 0 | — |
| Osstem Implant Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Promimic AB | 0 | — |
| Fermoinvers SL | 0 | — |
| M3 HEALTH IND E COMERCIO DE PROD MEDICOS ODONTOLOGICOS E CORRELATOS SA | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this
This landscape is a starting point for a freedom-to-operate check or a licensing conversation, not a substitute for one.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leading portfolios
With 49.7% of records held by five assignees, any new surface-preparation or coating filing should be checked against those portfolios specifically before drafting claims.
Run an FTO search in EurekaTrack the pipeline, not just published counts
Recent years look quiet partly because publication lags filing by about 18 months; monitor newly published applications as they surface rather than relying on the 2024-2026 counts alone.
Set up monitoring in EurekaExplore the under-claimed coating branches
Growth-factor coatings and bacterial-adhesion-resistant surfaces show thinner coverage than core roughening claims — a plausible area to search for white space before committing R&D spend.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the field with 27 of the 197 records in scope, noticeably ahead of the fifth-ranked filer's 12. The top five assignees combined hold 98 records, or 49.7% of all records in scope, meaning close to half the documented activity sits with a small group of companies. The ranking itself covers 100 companies in total, so beyond the leaders there is a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
Filing activity peaked at 25 records in 2019 and has since declined, with 2021's 17 records falling to 3 by 2024, an -82% drop over that span. That said, publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 are still filling in and should not be read as the field having stopped. The honest read is that the core surface-preparation technique is mature and heavily claimed, while newer biological-coating angles remain more open.
SLA and related surface-roughening techniques form the technical core of this dataset, alongside titanium oxide layer engineering and hydrophilicity treatments aimed at supporting early loading. These mechanical and chemical roughening methods are the most heavily filed branch, reflected in the dominance of A61C dentistry classification across 70.1% of the 197 records. Newer filings increasingly pair this roughening with an antibacterial or coating function rather than claiming roughness alone.
A61L, the sterilising and disinfecting classification, appears on 47.7% of the 197 records, second only to A61C dentistry classification at 70.1%. This overlap exists because implant surface roughness directly affects bacterial adhesion: a surface engineered to promote fast bone bonding can also, if unaddressed, promote biofilm formation. As a result, many recent filings claim the surface-treatment method together with an antibacterial coating or sterilisation step rather than treating them as separate inventions.
The clearer opportunities sit in branches with comparatively thin coverage relative to the core roughening claims: biological growth-factor coatings beyond BMP-2, bacterial-adhesion-resistant coatings that do not rely on antibiotics, and coating durability specifically under early functional loading protocols. C23C coating and deposition classification appears on only 4.6% of the 197 records despite coating technique being central to the field, suggesting this area is under-claimed relative to its technical importance. Any filing here should still be checked against the leading assignees' broader portfolios before drafting.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Dental Implant Surface Treatment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Dental Implant Surface Treatment in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dental implant surface treatment corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.