Key result
BIA400 and Ponto Wide comparison lacks specific clinical findings for long-term stability and survival.
Why the study?
Does BIA400 improve implant stability, tolerability, and survival compared to Ponto Wide in patients receiving bone conduction devices?
Does BIA400 improve implant stability, tolerability, and survival compared to Ponto Wide in patients receiving bone conduction devices?
Retrospective comparison of BIA400 and Ponto Wide adds limited evidence; leaves open optimal device selection pending randomized data.
Objective The purpose of this single-centre retrospective study was to determine the long-term outcomes of the BIA400 and Ponto Wide, in terms of implant stability, soft tissue reactions, skin thickening and implant loss. Methods Adults who had the BIA400 or Ponto Wide implanted between January 2013 and December 2023 and had at least two follow-up appointments were included, leading to a cohort of 93 BIA400 and 114 Ponto Wide implants. Results Significantly more soft tissue reactions with a Holgers Scale score of 1 or greater ( p = 0.003), adverse soft tissue reactions of Holgers Scale score of 2 or greater ( p = 0.018), skin thickening ( p < 0.001) and skin thickening requiring treatment ( p ≤ 0.001) occurred in the BIA400 group. No difference in implant stability was found. One BIA400 implant (1.1 per cent) and three Ponto Wide implants (2.7 per cent) were lost. Conclusion Both implants have excellent implant stability and similar implant survival rates. The Ponto Wide has favourable outcomes in terms of (adverse) soft tissue reaction and skin thickening (requiring treatment).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haan et al. (2026) studied this question. BIA400 and Ponto Wide bone conduction devices were compared for long-term implant stability, tolerability, and survival, but specific clinical findings are unavailable in the abstract.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: