Dental Implant Materials Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled since the 2017 peak of 24 families, with the 2022 midpoint at just 8 – a signal that core material claims are largely staked out rather than still emerging.
- A61C dentistry claims dominate at 337 of 369 records, while additive manufacturing (B33Y, 12 records) and abrasive surface treatment (B24C, 11 records) remain comparatively open.
- The most-cited prior art dates to the 1990s screw-type and post-and-abutment designs, meaning today's material innovation claims are being tested against three-decade-old foundational patents, not recent ones.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 369 patent families filed against dental implant and restoration technology where the claims specifically touch zirconia dental ceramics, titanium implant surface treatment, bioactive coatings or general dental material composition. The search spans A61C dentistry filings alongside supporting classes in sterilisation (A61L), medicinal preparations (A61K), implants and prostheses (A61F) and ceramics (C04B), capturing the material-science layer that sits underneath implant hardware design rather than the hardware itself.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, the last one to two years in any trend line will understate true filing activity – a fact worth keeping in mind before reading the 2026 figure as a real slowdown rather than a reporting artefact.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
The filing curve and IPC mix together show a field that built its material-claim base early and has since redirected attention toward manufacturing process and surface treatment rather than base composition.
A peak year, then a plateau
Filings peaked at 24 in 2017 and had fallen to a midpoint of 8 by 2022, with 2026 (partial) showing only 2. Read the tail end cautiously given publication lag, but the multi-year decline from peak predates any lag effect and looks structural rather than a reporting gap.
Dentistry claims concentrate, manufacturing classes stay thin
A61C accounts for 337 of 369 records – near-total overlap, as expected given the search scope. The more informative split is further down the list: C04B ceramics and A61F implant structure each sit at 28, A61B diagnosis/surgery at 17, and additive manufacturing (B33Y, 12) and abrasive blasting surface prep (B24C, 11) trail well behind. That tail is where claim density is lowest relative to the underlying manufacturing techniques now used in the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 369 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Dental Implant Technology Advanced Materials with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dental implant technology advanced materials and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaFoundational prior art and a representative recent filing
US20120202170A1 – Dental implant articles and methods (3M Innovative Properties Company, 2012-08-09)
Presently described are dental implant articles, including kits, methods of making dental implant articles and methods of use. The dental implant articles comprise a preformed dental implant abutment integrated therein, with a subgingival implant anchor-receiving end and an opposing end permanently bonded within a sufficiently malleable dental material, preferably with tooth-shaped gingival exterior surfaces.Numbered reference elements (200, 210, 201) are drawing callouts from the original filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4713004A | Submergible screw-type dental implant and method of utilization | 344 |
| 2 | US5437551A | Dental implant post and prosthesis construction | 282 |
| 3 | US5106300A | Dental implant attachment structure and method | 223 |
| 4 | US20090042167A1 | Method of Manufacturing and Installing a Ceramic Dental Implant with an Aesthetic Implant Abutment | 215 |
| 5 | US5338196A | Dental laboratory components and procedures for anatomical restoration on artificial root fixtures | 207 |
| 6 | US5071351A | Dental implant system | 201 |
| 7 | US5316476A | Dental implant with a longitudinally grooved cylindrical surface | 194 |
| 8 | US4932868A | Submergible screw-type dental implant and method of utilization | 188 |
| 9 | US5188800A | Dental implant system | 181 |
| 10 | US4988298A | Precision abutment base | 173 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations within this corpus – treat them as a measure of foundational influence, not current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
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 →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 →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once family counts, IPC spread and citation age are read together.
Core material claims were staked out early
The 2017 peak of 24 families and the drop to a midpoint of 8 by 2022 point to a field where zirconia and titanium surface composition claims were largely filed in the first wave. New entrants are more likely to find open space in application methods and manufacturing process than in base material chemistry.
Dentistry classification dominates, ceramics and implant structure trail
C04B ceramics and A61F implant structure each hold 28 records – modest relative to the A61C total. That gap suggests structural and ceramic-composition claims are thinner than the headline family count implies, since much of the corpus is dentistry-application framing rather than deep materials-science claiming.
Foundational patents predate current material innovation
The most-cited records are screw-type and post-and-abutment designs from the late 1980s through mid-1990s. Freedom-to-operate work in this space has to clear both this older structural art and the newer material-composition layer, which raises the diligence burden for anyone filing on hybrid claims that touch both.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dental implant technology advanced materials, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is thin
No assignee shows filing activity in the latest year across the momentum data reviewed, consistent with the broader plateau in the trend line. Co-assignee activity is sparse – only nine pairs recorded, none appearing more than twice – indicating this is a field of largely independent filers rather than joint-development consortia.
A cooling field across the board, not just at the top
CAGENIX, VENT PLANT, Politechnika Warszawska and other tracked assignees all show zero filings in the most recent year. Combined with the overall trend decline, this points to a maturing claim landscape rather than a single leader pulling ahead while others exit.
Filers act largely alone
The strongest co-assignee links – Vent Plant with individual inventors, and a Biomet 3i / iShell Solutions pairing – appear only twice each. There is no dominant joint-filing cluster to track for partnership signals in this dataset.
US and EPO carry most of the volume
The United States (138) and EPO (67) account for the bulk of receiving-office filings, with WIPO PCT filings (34) sitting well behind. Canada, India and Austria each show single-digit-to-twenties volumes, marking them as secondary rather than primary filing jurisdictions for this technology.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| CAGENIX INC | 0 | — |
| VENT PLANT | 0 | — |
| Implant Innovations Inc. | 0 | — |
| POLITECHNIKA WARSZAWSKA | 0 | — |
| Chermatek Technology Inc. | 0 | — |
| Dentsply IH AB | 0 | — |
| Straumann Holding AG | 0 | — |
| Biomet 3i, LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with settled foundational claims and a thinner, still-open layer around manufacturing process and surface treatment.
Check freedom-to-operate against the oldest structural patents
Any new filing that combines a material-composition claim with implant structure should be checked against the pre-1995 screw-type and post-and-abutment patents that still carry the highest citation counts in this corpus.
Explore prior art in EurekaScope claims toward the under-claimed manufacturing branches
Additive manufacturing and abrasive surface treatment show far fewer records than the dentistry classification as a whole, and are a more realistic place to build a defensible claim than core material composition.
Map white space in EurekaCommon questions about dental implant materials patents
The most-cited records in this landscape are structural implant patents from the late 1980s and mid-1990s, including a submergible screw-type implant patent cited 344 times and a post-and-prosthesis construction patent cited 282 times. These older structural patents remain foundational reference points even though current filing activity has moved toward materials and surface treatment. Anyone developing new implant hardware or composite material claims should expect diligence against this older art as a starting point, not an afterthought.
Ceramics (C04B, which covers zirconia composition) and implant structure (A61F) each account for 28 of the 369 records in this dataset, a relatively even split. Neither branch shows the dense concentration seen in the overall dentistry classification, which suggests both zirconia composition and titanium surface treatment still have room for narrowly scoped claims, particularly where they intersect with newer manufacturing methods like additive fabrication.
Filings peaked at 24 families in 2017, fell to a midpoint of 8 by 2022, and sit at only 2 in the most recent partial year. This pattern is typical of a field where first-generation material composition claims were filed early and the pace of genuinely new base-material claims has since slowed. Because publication lags filing by roughly eighteen months, the most recent one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, but the multi-year decline from the 2017 peak predates that lag effect.
Given that A61L sterilising and disinfecting claims appear in 88 of 369 records and A61K medicinal preparation claims in 60, a coating startup should first check whether its adhesion or drug-elution method overlaps with either of these adjacent classes rather than only the ceramics and structural classes. Coating adhesion methods currently look under-claimed relative to base material composition, which is a more promising area to seek protection than trying to claim the underlying ceramic or titanium substrate itself.
Not really – only nine co-assignee pairs were identified across the entire dataset, and none appears more than twice. The strongest pairings involve individual inventors filing alongside a single corporate assignee rather than sustained multi-party research collaborations. This tells competitive intelligence teams that tracking joint ventures is a lower priority here than tracking individual assignee filing volume and IPC focus.
Research Dental Implant Technology Advanced Materials in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dental implant technology advanced materials 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.