Are you looking for a document? Click here to go to the Downloadcenter

Benefits at the glance

  • Increased surface energy and improved wettability (Tugulu 2009 & 2010).
  • Homogeneous wetting of the implant with blood and activation of thrombocytes (Milleret 2011).
  • Thicker fibrin network (Milleret 2011).
  • 40% higher buccal bone-to-implant contact (BIC) in the early healing phase.
  • Higher implant stability.
  • More safety in the healing phase.
  • Low early failure rate of 0.5% (Le Gac, Grunder 2015).
  • Fewer early failures than the best in class (Derks, 2014).
  • Shorter healing times for patients with poor bone quality (type III and IV) (Held, 2014).
  • A safe and predictable treatment option after only three weeks (Hinkle, 2014)

·    Calvo-Guirado JL, Ortiz-Ruiz AJ, Negri B, López-Marí L,Rodriguez-Barba C, Schlottig F. Clinical Oral Implants Research 21, no. 3 (2010): 308-15.
·    Milleret V, Tugulu S, Schlottig F, Hall H. European Cells and Materials 21 (2011): 430-44.
·    Stadlinger B, Lode AT, Eckelt U, Range U, Schlottig F, Hefti T, Mai R. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 36, no.10 (2009): 882-891.
·    Stadlinger B, Ferguson SJ, Eckelt U, Mai R, Lode AT, Loukota R, Schlottig F. The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery 50, no. 1 (2012): 74-9.
·    Tugulu S, Löwe K, Scharnweber D, Schlottig F. Journal of Materials Science Materials in Medicine 21, no.10 (2010): 2751-2763.
·    Tugulu S, Hall H, Schlottig F. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20, no.9 (2009): 1024-25 (poster no.376),
·    Vasak C, Busenlechner D, Schwarze UY, Leitner HF, Munoz Guzon F, Hefti T, Schlottig F, Gruber R. Clinical Oral Implants Research 25, no.12 (2014) 1378-85.

·    Derks J, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Larsson M, Berglundh T. JDR March 94 no.3 suppl (2015): 44-51.
·    Held U. Zahnärztl Impl 30, no.2 (2014): 134-142.
·    Held U, Rohner D, Rothamel D. Head and Face Medicine 9, no.37 (2013):1-9.
·    Hinkle RM, Rimer SR, Morgan MH, Zeman P. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 72 no. 8 (2014): 1495-1502.
·    Le Gac O, Grunder U. Dentistry Journal, no 3 (2015):15-23.
·    van Eekeren P, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D. Clinical Oral Implants Research 0, (2015):1-6.



Flyer - INICELL®  ​​​​​​​

Surface topography

Many consider the sandblasted, thermal acid-etched microrough surface to be the gold standard for implant surface modification.

The advantage for implants that feature a microrough surface is that they establish excellent functional and structural connections between the bone and the implant surface, leading to higher intrinsic implant stability.¹ 

Specifically, the microrough surface enhances the interlocking of the implant surface with bone and has been shown to promote the differentiation of osteogenic cells in-vitro.²


1 Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T, Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Hirt HP, Snétivy D, Nolte LP. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 45(2): 75-83.
2 Boyan B et al. Titanium in medicine. Brunette DM et al. (eds.) Springer, 2001: 562-79.


First step of the osseointegration process

Surface energy and hydrophilicity play a crucial role in the primary interaction of an implant with its physiological environment.¹ This interaction begins immediately upon the first blood contact, in the form of rapid adsorption of a film of plasma proteins. INICELL® (right) exhibits a complete and homogenous protein film, indicating full contact with the physiological protein solution. The unconditioned surface (left) shows a nonhomgenous protein film. The result suggests advantageous primary contact and protein adsorption for INICELL®.²

Fluorescence microscopic picture of the protein film on model substrates five minutes after primary contact with protein solution.

The quantity, composition, homogenity and functionality of the protein film deposited on the implant surface directly influences the healing and osseointegration processes to follow. 

Download document


1 Brodbeck W. G., et al., J. M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002; 99, 10: 287-292.
2 Tugulu S., et al., J Mater Sci Mater med. 2010; 21, 10: 2751-63.


By slightly changing the surface chemistry, it is possible to increase surface energy. When surface energy increases, a superhydrophilic surface is created and wettability is improved. Thereby, a hydrophobic surface is changed into a superhydrophilic surface (INICELL®).¹

Download document

¹ Tugulu S., et al., J Mater Sci Mater med. 2010; 21, 10: 2751-63.

Designed for function

APLIQUIQ® is the fast and effective chairside conditioning system used to produce the superhydrophilic INICELL® surface.

The APLIQUIQ® container contains the conditioning agent, implant and healing cap. For outstanding product development and design, Thommen Medical AG has been honored with the distinguished reddot design product award 2011. APLIQUIQ® was selected by the reddot committee based on the product’s practical design, useful functionality and innovative technology..


Download document


Simple use. Instant application.

Three simple steps to the clinical benefits of INICELL®:

1. Push in the cartridge
2. Shake the applicator five times
3. Place the implant

Scientific data on Osseointegration

In vitro

In vitro: the performance and benefits of INICELL® have been investigated in a number of studies.

In vivo

In vivo: three different animal models were used to compare the unconditioned reference implants with the conditioned INICELL® implants of the same type in the following:

  • pelvis of sheep ¹
  • mini-pig mandible ²
  • beagle dog mandible ³

These results confirm in-vitro and animal studies from the published literature which highlight the advantages of superhydrophilic, microrough surfaces. ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ 

The picture shows the bone-to-implant interface in the early healing phase of the mini-pig model (left with unconditioned Thommen surface and right with INICELL®).

1 Ferguson S.J., et al., Poster presented at the 16th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), Barcelona, October 2007.
2 Stadlinger B., et. al., J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 882–891 and data presented at the 17th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), Warsaw, September 2008.
3 Calvo-Guirado J.-L., et al., Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2010; 21 308–315.
4 Heberer S., et al. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2011; 22: 546–551.
5 Lang N., et al. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2011;22: 349–356.
6 Mardas N. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2011;22: 406–415.
7 Rupp F., et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26,6: 1256-1266.


Further content

Find here more Information

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.