US Distributors

Your response does not include a reason why a doctor would choose Intra-lock implants over all the others? It may not be a bright question but no one seems to be able to answer it.
My feeling is intra-lock exists for one reason because the owner believed he would be able to unload the operation to a large implant company ala Alpha Bio purchase by Nobel for $90 mil. Five years ago there was a chance. Now no chance of that happening. So they are stuck with. Sales force that collects a check from intra lock instead of state unemployment trying to sell an unsellable product line.

 

The answer to why would any dentist choose Intra-Lock? ...there aren't any viable reasons.

They would have you believe they are a "science" based company? Compared to what? Straumann with 50 years of research and published data?

What are they adding to the space? Even if you could somehow connect their "science" to something that creates outcomes now and for the patient's lifetime better than anything else on the market, it would have to be a clinically significant difference in order to assume all the risk of adding a brand that has massive drawbacks, and no guarantee of a future at all.

That's why no one is buying it. There is absolutely no need.

 

I would have to agree. There are no unmet needs in the current implant market. The two big players, Nobel and Straumann, have products that work great, satisfy every niche and clinical application, and both companies have massive amount of research and clinical data available for review. Most importantly, Nobel and Straumann have predicable clinical outcomes. Yes, they are expensive, but if you are looking for the best, the most studied, the most likely to be successful, price becomes less important. Particularly when a doctor is charging upwards of $1500 to place an implant.

 

One thing $400 buys is predictability. If your risking your reputation on clinical outcome, then yes, you best use the implant that time shows will produce the results the dentist and the patient expect. If you want to risk your reputation, and maybe incur a lawsuit because you did not choose the best surgical solution for the patient, then you go with the unproven, unstudied, implant. Reputable surgeons, do not, and will never touch these unknown implants.

 

Massive amounts of research??? I beg to differ. Nobel and Straumann launch new implants almost every year with almost no clinical research behind them. They then do the "research" after the implant is already on the market.

They are just well known companies.

 

Anyone who makes the claim that Nobel or Straumann have less research than any other implant company simply does not know what they are talking about. Not to mention most implant companies submit their implants to the FDA as "Clinical Equivalent" to existing implants. That means Straumann and Nobel did the original research to get the FDA approval, and then POS companies like ID, Intra-Lock, and Thommenn, etc, use the original research for their approvals. Try making the argument to any specialist that Nobel or Straumann lack research, you'll be laughed right out the door. When competitors make ridiculous claims like this, they look absolutely inept. One of the reasons specialists and Universities, and the Military use Nobel and Straumann is because the products have passed their rigorous research based requirements. Try selling the Intra-Lock product to the Military or A university clinic.

 

OK- obviously written by a rep with either very little time on the job, or one who has had a few too many glasses of their corporate Kool-Aid.

First, one of the major legitimate criticisms of Nobel is that for many years they have launched products before they were ready for the market based on empirical evidence only- ie, "it sounded good at the time"

Second, so when they licensed the Alphia-Bio technology for the NobelActive, what research dollars did they use? And if you look up any of the implants in existence today, the predicate device is old one PI Branemark did many years ago on the first implant. Straumann included. Branemark did that work- not Nobel.

Third, the reason that Universities use Nobel is plain and simple- Nobel has bought that business. Just like Straumann (used to do), Astra (we'll see if thrifty Dentsply continues to splash the irresponsible cash that Astra did on Universities and speakers without the Urology division to pay for it), 3i, etc. Do a little digging and you will verifiy that they buy the business and then contractually prohibit those Universities from using any other vendors. There are very few who arent getting a big check from one of the big boys any more.

Finally, what is the last major innovation of the two companies you mentioned? Straumann- their bone-level implant? That was a total flop that they brought to try to hedge the bleeding from the anterior cases after years of telling people that their trans-gingival implant could be used just fine in the anterior by sinking it. Then they come out with this bone level product that was, and still is, lacking restoratively. It doesn't surpass much of anything on the market apart from their surface. Nobel? Copycat conical and hex connections and licensed NobelActive technology. Will that enable them to remove the warning labels from the narrow implants from all the fractures (which they gloss-over by trying to rename it "flowering")? Time will tell.

But, in summary, the "bigs" are not, and haven't been for some time, the innovators and researchers that they once were.

 

Nobel is a copy cat? That is sme funny shit. You do some research dipshit. PI Branemark developed the external hex implant as well as discovered Titanium osseintegrates into bone. Nobel Biocare's heritage goes directly to PI Branemark and the first titanium internal connection implant. Explain how that is a copy cat. If something works there is little reason to change it.
Nobel does fund many universities imlant programs absolutely. Is there something wrong with that? If you think so speak to the university adminstrators that ask for the money from Nobel.
If the clinical outcomes where not there no amount of money would cause a university to use an implant. Are you also saying the VA and active military also are being paid or are they just clueless idiots who don't know as much as a rep like you?

 

Thank you for confirming your own ignorance.

Yes- Nobel is a copycat. Internal Hex- just launched- and copied. Conical connection- just launched and copied. Nobel Active- not even a copy- it's someone else's work altogether. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Nobel invented the internal connection? Hmmm... last I checked that was our old friend Niznick. Unfortunately for the implant world, that is where he stopped innovating- but that is another story.

Now, you were complaining about my statement about universities. Well, if you have been following this thread, you would have read that the previous poster wrote:

"One of the reasons specialists and Universities, and the Military use Nobel and Straumann is because the products have passed their rigorous research based requirements."

My statement was a challenge to that idea. The administrators themselves will tell you that they will continue to plug in the overpriced implants first and foremost because of the money they are getting- not because "the products have passed their rigorous research based requirements."

Finally, you made a statement about the VA and military. Since you apparently didn't read my previous post completely before you unleashed an emotional and irrational reply that misrepresented what I said- reread my post before putting more words in my mouth. You aren't coming off looking very intelligent here.

 

I stand by my comments. Nobel did develop the first external hex implant, and does in fact have a lineage directly to PI Branemarks discovery in 1964 of osseointegration. How that is a copy cat idea is beyond my comprehensive. Branemark's research was groundbreaking and pure science. He discovered it while studying something other than dental implants.
The Branemark implant is still sold by Nobel, has worked for over forty years, and their newer designs, particularly the surface are descendants of the Branemark implant.
In regard to military, they are rigorous in their purchasing decisions with on overabundance of caution. Why would they use an implant you, a rep, claims is a terrible clinical product? Please answer that. Secondly in regard to Universities, there are hundreds of universities and dental schools using Nobel Implants, your claim that all of those universities are using the product because they are all receiving kickbacks is laughable.
If someone thinks Nobel is a risky choice of an implant, I can only imagine what one would think of choosing Intra-Lock, Neoss, Dentium or any of the other unknown, come lately companies peddling their products.

 

You clearly aren't comprehending what we are talking about here. Just because an implant has the Nobel name on it, it doesn't mean it has been clinically proven and tested. Why are you bringing up Branemark??? What does that have to do with the latest implants they have launched? They've launched implants with no real clinical data attached to them. That is the point. It has nothing to do with no name brand implants other than they don't have research either and cost a heck of a lot less.

 

You speak in general terms. Provide an example of a "new" Nobel implant that lacks sufficient research, and because of this lack of research is not used by a university or military.

 

All of Nobel's recent launches have all been before any clinical data was published. As for university use, you think schools care about research when picking an implant system? Uh no. All that matters is how much of a grant they give the school. Seriously, you can't be this naive.

 

What does all this have to do with this PEICE of shit Intra-Lock abortion. Some limp dick manager from Intra-Lock trying to hijack the subject to Nobel to divert it away from their sorry state of affairs.

 

Way to bring it back. I see that they are still looking to fill the Philly territory on medreps. $60-70k base with $30-40k in commission???? On what planet can you sell that much to make that comp???

 

Intra-Lock pays 7% commission. So in order to make $30,000 in commission you'd have to sell $450,000 worth of implants the first year to meet the commission they are promising on Medreps. For the full size implants, sold at full list price which is $225 per implant you would need to sell 2000 implants a year. ($225 X2000 = $450,000x7%)
At $75, which is the mini implant price, you'd need to sell 6000 implants. ($75 x 6000 = 450,000x7%)

Of course that would be in the Phillie market only. Jose can show the new person how to get that done. The company doesn't sell this many implants in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, let alone in the Phillie market. Their Medreps posting is a blatant lie.
Prospective employees, ask how the company is arriving at these numbers. Don't risk your families future on a shady company like this. Company hires you on the premise of a lie.
NO ONE HERE IS SELLING 2000 implants a year. NO ONE EVER WILL.

 

Uranus

 

You couldn't sell anything no matter who you worked for. Hit the bricks pal, you're a loser!!!

 

First of all, unemployable wimps like you shouldn't even have a family.. Nice Great, Go Father, F****K. If you want to be in this business you have to produce. End of story.... Go cry to some that cares!!

 

Maybe you should go work in Uruguay... Perhaps the implant co's there don't know what a cancer and a zero that you are!!!!

NOBODY is going to hire you other than a "Mom & Pop" distributor.